Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400 based on its performance, single-core performance and value.
See full details Intel Xeon 5148 vs Core2 Duo E8400 |
Released September, 2006
Intel Xeon 5148
- 2.33 GHz
- Dual core
4 Out of 10
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
4.6 Out of 10
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 |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 5148 vs E8400 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 | |
| 4.6 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
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 | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon 5148 vs Core2 Duo E8400
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
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
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  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 | |
| $179 | ||
| 250 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $179 | $179 | |
| Q8400 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | $179 | |
| E7500 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $64 | $179 | |
| E5700 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 |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| 3217U vs 847 | ||
