Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Texas Instruments OMAP 4 (4430)

Reasons to consider the
Texas Instruments OMAP 4 (4430)

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 0.81W vs 105.63W 130x lower typical power consumption
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 65 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
Much lower annual home energy cost 0.24 $/year vs 31.32 $/year 130x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 0.88 $/year vs 113.88 $/year 130x lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Feb, 2010 Release date 10 months later
Front view of Intel Itanium 9310

Reasons to consider the
Intel Itanium 9310

Report a correction
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs ARM A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz vs 1.2 GHz Around 35% higher clock speed
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads

Features Key features of the OMAP 4 (4430)  vs Itanium 9310 

clock speed

OMAP 4 (4430)
1.2 GHz
Itanium 9310
1.6 GHz

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

OMAP 4 (4430)  vs
Itanium 9310 
Clock speed 1.2 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label PowerVR SGX540 N/A
GPU clock speed 365 MHz N/A

details

OMAP 4 (4430)  vs
Itanium 9310 
Architecture ARM x86-64
Threads 2 4
Manufacture process 45 nm 65 nm

power consumption

TDP 1W 130W
Annual home energy cost 0.24 $/year 31.32 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 0.88 $/year 113.88 $/year
Typical power consumption 0.81W 105.63W
Texas Instruments OMAP 4 (4430)
Report a correction
Intel Itanium 9310
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus