Winner
Intel Core i3 3220
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i3 3220 based on its performance, single-core performance and value.
See full details Intel Pentium T4400 vs Core i3 3220 |
Released October, 2009
Intel Pentium T4400
- 2.2 GHz
- Dual core
4.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Pentium T4400
 | Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 1,897 | | More l2 cache 1 MB |
| | Lower typical power consumption 28.44W | | More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core |
VS
Released September, 2012
Intel Core i3 3220
- 3.3 GHz
- Dual core
6.9 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core i3 3220
| | Significantly higher clock speed 3.3 GHz | | Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 5,351 |
| | Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of T4400 vs 3220 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 | |
| 6.9 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core i3 3220CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark06 CPU score | 1,897 | vs | 47.7 | More than 39.8x better 3DMark06 CPU score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More l2 cache | 1 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 28.44W | vs | 44.69W | More than 35% lower typical power consumption | |||
| More l2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | vs | 13.25 $/year | More than 35% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | vs | 48.18 $/year | More than 35% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 3.3 GHz | vs | 2.2 GHz | Around 50% higher clock speed | |||
| Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score | 5,351 | vs | 1,955 | Around 2.8x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score | |||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Has virtualization support | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines | |||
| Significantly better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 5,399 | vs | 2,075 | More than 2.5x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,764 | vs | 846 | More than 2x better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 1.18 pt/$ | vs | 0.67 pt/$ | More than 75% better performance per dollar | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.43 GHz | vs | 2.51 GHz | More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Newer | Sep, 2012 | vs | Oct, 2009 | Release date over 2 years later | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.46 GHz | vs | 2.2 GHz | More than 55% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium T4400 vs Core i3 3220
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
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Pentium T4400 | vs | Core i3 3220 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.3 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| 478 | |||
| P | |||
| LGA 1155 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | No | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 35W | 55W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | 13.25 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | 48.18 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 2.56 pt/W | 2.69 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 28.44W | 44.69W | |
details | Pentium T4400 | vs | Core i3 3220 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 0.5 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 11 | 33 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.51 GHz | 3.43 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.2 GHz | 3.46 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.51 GHz | 3.43 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 2500 | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 3 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 650 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,050 MHz | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
 Intel Pentium T4400  Report a correction |  Intel Core i3 3220 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $50 | $125 | |
| 5300 vs 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | ||
| Q6600 vs 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $75 | $125 | |
| G2020 vs 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $94 | $125 | |
| J2900 vs 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $50 | $125 | |
| 5400K vs 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $82 | $125 | |
| J1900 vs 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $76 | $125 | |
| G2030 vs 3220 | ||
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 |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| 3217U vs 847 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $250 | |
| 6700K vs 6600K | ||
