Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Intel Pentium E5300

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Pentium E5300

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Pentium E5300

Reasons to consider the
Intel Pentium E5300

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,271 vs 651 Around 3.5x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Significantly higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 45% higher clock speed
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
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,358 vs 894 More than 50% better geekbench 3 single core score
Higher Maximum operating temperature 74.1 °C vs 60.4 °C Around 25% higher Maximum operating temperature
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.87 GHz vs 3.43 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Slightly better PassMark score 1,549 vs 491 Around 3.2x better PassMark score
Newer Jan, 2008 vs Apr, 2007 Release date 9 months later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.33 GHz vs 3.67 GHz Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron M 430

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 430

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 52.81W More than 45% lower typical power consumption
Better performance per dollar 1.64 pt/$ vs 1.5 pt/$ Around 10% better performance per dollar
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 45% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium E5300 vs Celeron M 430

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

Pentium E5300
110,800 MB/s
Celeron M 430
74,150 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Pentium E5300  vs
Celeron M 430 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 1.8 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
LGA 775
478

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes No

power consumption

TDP 65W 35W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 1.66 pt/W 1.73 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 28.44W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 800 MHz 800 MHz

details

Pentium E5300  vs
Celeron M 430 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 65 nm
Transistor count 228,000,000 105,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 13 9
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.36V 1 - 1.34V
Operating temperature Unknown - 74.1°C Unknown - 60.4°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.87 GHz 3.43 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.33 GHz 3.67 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.87 GHz 3.43 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
Intel Pentium E5300
Report a correction
Intel Celeron M 430
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus