Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400 based on its .
See full details Intel Pentium G3220 vs Core2 Duo E8400 |
Released September, 2013
Intel Pentium G3220
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Pentium G3220
 | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm |
| | Lower typical power consumption 43.88W | | Newer Sep, 2013 |
VS
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
3.3 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core2 Duo E8400
| | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
| | Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz | | Supports trusted computing Yes |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of G3220 vs E8400 among desktop CPUs (45 to 75W)
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 | |
| Fire Strike | |
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? | |
| Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
| 7 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 43.88W | vs | 52.81W | More than 15% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Newer | Sep, 2013 | vs | Jan, 2008 | Release date over 5 years later | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 13.01 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | More than 15% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 47.3 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 12x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 12x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 3.05 GHz | Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.23 GHz | vs | 3.2 GHz | More than 30% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium G3220 vs Core2 Duo E8400
CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench
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 (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Pentium G3220 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3 GHz | 3 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 54W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 13.01 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 47.3 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 2.75 pt/W | 1.83 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 43.88W | 52.81W | |
details | Pentium G3220 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 0.5 MB | 6 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nm | 45 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 72°C | Unknown - 72.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.05 GHz | 4.22 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.2 GHz | 4.23 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.05 GHz | 4.22 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 350 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,100 MHz | N/A | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | DMI 2.0 | FSB | |
| Number of links | 0 | 1 | |
 Intel Pentium G3220  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Duo E8400 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $179 | ||
| Q6600 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | $179 | |
| 3220 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | $179 | |
| E7500 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $179 | $179 | |
| Q8400 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $64 | $179 | |
| E5700 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $150 | $179 | |
| 2100 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $98 | $70 | |
| 4130 vs G3220 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS | |
| $50 | $125 | |
| 5300 vs 3220 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
