0 Comments
| Intel Pentium T4400 vs Core i3 3220 |
Released October, 2009
Intel Pentium T4400
- 2.2 GHz
- Dual core
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
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 |
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) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium T4400 vs Core i3 3220
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium T4400
2,075
Core i3 3220
5,399
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium T4400
1,150
Core i3 3220
2,501
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium T4400
92,800 MB/s
Core i3 3220
173,000 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium T4400
1,955
Core i3 3220
5,351
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium T4400
2,147
Core i3 3220
5,707
GeekBench
Pentium T4400
3,387
Core i3 3220
8,919
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Pentium T4400
1,282
Core i3 3220
4,229
PassMark (Single Core)
Pentium T4400
846
Core i3 3220
1,764
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 ![]() | Intel Core i3 3220 ![]() |
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 | ![]() |
$82 | $125 | |
J1900 vs 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $125 | |
E8400 vs 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$125 | ||
2500 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 | ![]() |
$230 | $248 | |
9590 vs 4770K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$350 | $250 | |
6700K vs 6600K | ||