0 Comments
| Intel Xeon X3220 vs Core2 Duo E8400 |
Released January, 2007
Intel Xeon X3220
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon X3220
![]() | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | ![]() | Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 4,507 |
![]() | More cores 4 | ![]() | More threads 4 |
VS
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Core2 Duo E8400
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm | ![]() | Higher clock speed 3 GHz |
![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core | ![]() | Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of X3220 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
| |||||||
Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 6 MB | Around 35% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 4,507 | vs | 2,982 | More than 50% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| |||||||
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 | 2.4 GHz | More than 25% higher clock speed | |||
Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 50% more l2 cache per core | |||
Much lower typical power consumption | 52.81W | vs | 85.31W | Around 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 3.52 GHz | Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,251 | vs | 939 | Around 35% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
Higher Maximum operating temperature | 72.4 °C | vs | 62.2 °C | More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Much lower annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | vs | 25.29 $/year | Around 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | vs | 91.98 $/year | Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Newer | Jan, 2008 | vs | Jan, 2007 | Release date a year later | |||
Slightly better performance per watt | 1.83 pt/W | vs | 1.21 pt/W | More than 50% better performance per watt | |||
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.23 GHz | vs | 3.67 GHz | More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Water) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon X3220 vs Core2 Duo E8400
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X3220
4,507
Core2 Duo E8400
2,982
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X3220
1,296
Core2 Duo E8400
1,625
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X3220
103,100 MB/s
Core2 Duo E8400
128,000 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X3220
4,365
Core2 Duo E8400
2,826
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X3220
4,757
Core2 Duo E8400
3,092
GeekBench
Xeon X3220
4,757
Core2 Duo E8400
4,794
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Xeon X3220
3,107
Core2 Duo E8400
2,160
PassMark (Single Core)
Xeon X3220
939
Core2 Duo E8400
1,251
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon X3220 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3 GHz | |
Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
Socket type | |||
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 | 105W | 65W | |
Annual home energy cost | 25.29 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 91.98 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 1.21 pt/W | 1.83 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 85.31W | 52.81W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 1,066 MHz | 1,333 MHz |
details | Xeon X3220 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 4 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 8 MB | 6 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 65 nm | 45 nm | |
Transistor count | 582,000,000 | 410,000,000 | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 9 | 9 | |
Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.5V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 62.2°C | Unknown - 72.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 3.52 GHz | 4.22 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.67 GHz | 4.23 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.52 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 X3220 ![]() | 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 | ||
E8400 vs 250 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $64 | |
E8400 vs E5700 | ||
![]() | 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 | ![]() |
$134 | $225 | |
847 vs 3217U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
3470 vs 5200 | ||