0 Comments
| Intel Xeon 5148 vs Core2 Duo E8400 |
Released September, 2006
Intel Xeon 5148
- 2.33 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon 5148
![]() | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 | ![]() | Significantly lower typical power consumption 32.5W |
![]() | Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 4,216 | ![]() | Significantly lower annual home energy cost 9.64 $/year |
VS
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Core2 Duo E8400
![]() | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | ![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm |
![]() | Higher clock speed 3 GHz | ![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| ![]() | Intel Core2 Duo E8400CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Significantly lower typical power consumption | 32.5W | vs | 52.81W | Around 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 4,216 | vs | 2,982 | More than 40% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 9.64 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | Around 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 35.04 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
Much more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 4 MB | 50% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
Higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 2.33 GHz | Around 30% higher clock speed | |||
Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 50% more l2 cache per core | |||
Much better performance per dollar | 0.67 pt/$ | vs | 0.14 pt/$ | Around 5x better performance per dollar | |||
Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 3.1 GHz | More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Higher Maximum operating temperature | 72.4 °C | vs | 58 °C | Around 25% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,251 | vs | 900 | Around 40% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.23 GHz | vs | 2.33 GHz | More than 80% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Newer | Jan, 2008 | vs | Sep, 2006 | Release date over 1 years later |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon 5148 vs Core2 Duo E8400
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon 5148
4,216
Core2 Duo E8400
2,982
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon 5148
1,200
Core2 Duo E8400
1,625
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon 5148
98.1 MB/s
Core2 Duo E8400
128,000 MB/s
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Xeon 5148
1,590
Core2 Duo E8400
2,160
PassMark (Single Core)
Xeon 5148
900
Core2 Duo E8400
1,251
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon 5148 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.33 GHz | 3 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 771 | |||
LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Instruction set extensions | |||
SSE2 | |||
MMX | |||
SSE3 | |||
SSE | |||
SSE4.1 | |||
Supplemental SSE3 | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 40W | 65W | |
Annual home energy cost | 9.64 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 35.04 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 1.89 pt/W | 1.83 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 32.5W | 52.81W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 1,333 MHz |
details | Xeon 5148 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 2 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 4 MB | 6 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 65 nm | 45 nm | |
Transistor count | 291,000,000 | 410,000,000 | |
Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 7 | 9 | |
Voltage range | 1.15 - 1.25V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 58°C | Unknown - 72.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 4.22 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.33 GHz | 4.23 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.1 GHz | 4.22 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 Xeon 5148 ![]() | Intel Core2 Duo E8400 ![]() |
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 | ![]() |
$200 | $179 | |
E8500 vs E8400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$200 | $179 | |
Q9400 vs E8400 | ||
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 | ||