Winner
Intel Pentium E2180
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Pentium E2180 based on its .
See full details| | Intel Pentium E2180 vs E2160 |
| | Higher clock speed 2 GHz | | Significantly better SysMark 2007 video creation score 126 |
| | Better SysMark 2007 overall score 107 | | Better SysMark 2007 3D score 108 |
by Tech Radar (Feb, 2008)Funny thing is, however, even at stock clocks, this processor delivers a decent experience.
| | Better performance per dollar 1.95 pt/$ |
by miggtt699 (Nov, 2012)Thats amazing for such a cheap processor, and it can beat some Core 2 Extremes!
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Pentium E2180 5.5 Pentium E2160 5.4 | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Pentium E2180 6.5 Pentium E2160 6.3 | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core) | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Pentium E2180 5.2 Pentium E2160 5.0 | |
| overclock popularity | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Pentium E2180 5.5 Pentium E2160 5.9 | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
| Pentium E2180 5.9 Pentium E2160 5.7 | |
Winner |
Intel Pentium E2180CPUBoss Winner | | |
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 2 GHz | vs | 1.8 GHz | More than 10% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly better SysMark 2007 video creation score | 126 | vs | 115 | Around 10% better SysMark 2007 video creation score | |||
| Better SysMark 2007 overall score | 107 | vs | 100 | More than 5% better SysMark 2007 overall score | |||
| Better SysMark 2007 3D score | 108 | vs | 98 | More than 10% better SysMark 2007 3D score | |||
| Slightly better geekbench (64-bit) score | 3,282 | vs | 1,838 | Around 80% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Marginally newer | Jul, 2007 | vs | Jul, 2006 | Release date a year later | |||
| |||||||
| Better performance per dollar | 1.95 pt/$ | vs | 1.17 pt/$ | More than 65% better performance per dollar | |||
Pentium E2160 | by miggtt699 (Nov, 2012)Thats just amazing... I did some benching myself, only could go up to 3 ghz, from there the computer wouldn't start anymore, I used passmark bench.
summary | Pentium E2180 | vs | E2160 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.8 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | No | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has vitualization support | No | No | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | None | None | |
| Label | N/A | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| 3DMark06 | N/A | N/A | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz | |
details | Pentium E2180 | vs | E2160 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nms | 65 nms | |
| Transistor count | 105,000,000 | 105,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 10 | 9 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.5V | 0.85 - 1.5V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 73.3°C | Unknown - 73.3°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 8 | 0 | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 65W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 3.59 pt/W | 3.3 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 52.81W | |
| Intel Pentium E2180 | Intel Pentium E2160 |
| VS | |
| $110 | $5 | |
| E2160 vs E6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $20 | |
| E2160 vs E8400 | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $7 | |
| E2160 vs 925 | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $74 | |
| E2160 vs 945 | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $39 | |
| E2160 vs 630 | ||
| VS | |
| $200 | $20 | |
| E2180 vs E8400 | ||
| VS | |
| $200 | $5 | |
| E2180 vs E6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $335 | $248 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | $161 | |
| 3110M vs N3530 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| 3217U vs N2830 | ||
| VS | |
| $281 | $105 | |
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
| VS | |
| $335 | $340 | |
| 4770K vs 4790K | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| 5750M vs 4700MQ | ||
| VS | |
| 5 Octa vs 800 | ||