Intel Pentium E2200 vs Core Duo T2400 |
Released October, 2007
Intel Pentium E2200
- 2.2 GHz
- Dual core
4.9 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Pentium E2200
 | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 93,700 MB/s | | More advanced architecture x86-64 |
| | Higher clock speed 2.2 GHz | | Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.09 GHz |
VS
Released January, 2006
Intel Core Duo T2400
- 1.83 GHz
- Dual core
4.9 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core Duo T2400
| | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB | | Has virtualization support Yes |
| | Significantly lower typical power consumption 25.19W | | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E2200 vs T2400 among all CPUs
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more | |
Integrated Graphics | |
Integrated GPU performance for graphics | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
Integrated Graphics (OpenCL) | |
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
How efficiently does the processor use electricity? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Pentium E2200CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 93,700 MB/s | vs | 73,900 MB/s | More than 25% better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More advanced architecture | x86-64 | vs | x86 | A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor | |||
| Higher clock speed | 2.2 GHz | vs | 1.83 GHz | More than 20% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.09 GHz | vs | 2.27 GHz | More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.83 GHz | vs | 1.83 GHz | More than 2x better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Newer | Oct, 2007 | vs | Jan, 2006 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly more l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 1 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Has virtualization support | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines | |||
| Significantly lower typical power consumption | 25.19W | vs | 52.81W | 2.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 7.47 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | 2.1x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 27.16 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | 2.1x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Slightly better performance per watt | 2.06 pt/W | vs | 1.35 pt/W | More than 50% better performance per watt | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium E2200 vs Core Duo T2400
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Pentium E2200 | vs | Core Duo T2400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.83 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| 479 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | No | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 65W | 31W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 7.47 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 27.16 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.35 pt/W | 2.06 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 25.19W | |
details | Pentium E2200 | vs | Core Duo T2400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 65 nm | |
| Transistor count | 105,000,000 | 151,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 11 | 11 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.5V | 1.16 - 1.3V | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.09 GHz | 2.27 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.83 GHz | 1.83 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.09 GHz | 2.27 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| 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 | 667 MHz | |
 Intel Pentium E2200  Report a correction |  Intel Core Duo T2400 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $179 | $67 | |
| E8400 vs E2200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $67 | ||
| E2180 vs E2200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $67 | ||
| E6300 vs E2200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $64 | $67 | |
| E5700 vs E2200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $72 | $67 | |
| E5200 vs E2200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | $67 | |
| E7500 vs E2200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| T7200 vs T2400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| 3217U vs 847 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
