0 Comments
| Intel Xeon L3110 vs Core2 Duo E8400 |
Released February, 2009
Intel Xeon L3110
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon L3110
![]() | Lower typical power consumption 36.56W | ![]() | Higher Maximum operating temperature 78.65 °C |
![]() | Newer Feb, 2009 | ![]() | Better performance per watt 2.61 pt/W |
VS
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Core2 Duo E8400
![]() | Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz | ![]() | Better performance per dollar 0.67 pt/$ |
![]() | Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.23 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of L3110 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 |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| ![]() | Intel Core2 Duo E8400CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Lower typical power consumption | 36.56W | vs | 52.81W | More than 30% lower typical power consumption | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Higher Maximum operating temperature | 78.65 °C | vs | 72.4 °C | Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Newer | Feb, 2009 | vs | Jan, 2008 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
Better performance per watt | 2.61 pt/W | vs | 1.83 pt/W | More than 40% better performance per watt | |||
Lower annual home energy cost | 10.84 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | More than 30% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Lower annual commercial energy cost | 39.42 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 3 GHz | More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Better performance per dollar | 0.67 pt/$ | vs | 0.48 pt/$ | Around 40% better performance per dollar | |||
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.23 GHz | vs | 3 GHz | More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon L3110 vs Core2 Duo E8400
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Xeon L3110
2,273
Core2 Duo E8400
2,160
PassMark (Single Core)
Xeon L3110
1,266
Core2 Duo E8400
1,251
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon L3110 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 3 GHz | 3 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | 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 | 45W | 65W | |
Annual home energy cost | 10.84 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 39.42 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 2.61 pt/W | 1.83 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 36.56W | 52.81W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 1,333 MHz |
details | Xeon L3110 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 2 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 6 MB | 6 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 45 nm | 45 nm | |
Transistor count | 410,000,000 | 410,000,000 | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 9 | 9 | |
Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.36V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 78.65°C | Unknown - 72.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 3 GHz | 4.22 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3 GHz | 4.23 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3 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 L3110 ![]() | Intel Core2 Duo E8400 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | ||
E8400 vs Q6600 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $125 | |
E8400 vs 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $125 | |
E8400 vs E7500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $179 | |
E8400 vs Q8400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $64 | |
E8400 vs E5700 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | ||
E8400 vs 250 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $287 | |
E8400 vs Q9550 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$134 | $225 | |
847 vs 3217U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
3470 vs 5200 | ||