Intel core 2 processor comparison: No such special page | Diffen

202 Comments

IndexNew PricingThe TestL2 Cache: 4MB or 2MB?Memory Latency: No Integrated Memory Controller NecessaryFSB Bottlenecks: Is 1333MHz Necessary?Power Consumption: Who is the king?Application Performance using SYSMark 2004 SEApplication Performance using PC WorldBench 5Application Performance using Winstone 20043D Rendering Performance using 3dsmax 7 & CineBench 9.5Encoding Performance using DivX 6.1, WME9, Quicktime (H.264) & iTunesGaming with Core 2 and CrossFire on 975XGaming Performance using Quake 4, Battlefield 2 & Half Life 2 Episode 1Gaming Performance using F.E.A.R. & Rise of LegendsGaming Performance using OblivionCPU Bound Gaming PerformanceOverclockingFinal Words

The architecture is called Core, processor family is Core 2, the product names are Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme. In the past we’ve talked about its architecture and even previewed its performance, but today is the real deal. We’ve all been waiting for this day, the day Intel lifts the last remaining curtain on the chip that is designed to re-take the performance crown from AMD, to return Intel to its days of glory.

It sure looks innocent enough:

Core 2 Duo (left) vs. Pentium D (right)

What you see above appears to be no different than a Pentium D. Honestly, unless you flip it over there’s no indication of what lies beneath that dull aluminum heat spreader.

Core 2 Duo (left) vs. Pentium D (right)

But make no mistake, what you see before you is not the power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it’s the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years. No, you’re instead looking at the most impressive piece of silicon the world has ever seen — and the fastest desktop processor we’ve ever tested. What you’re looking at is Conroe and today is its birthday.

Intel’s Core 2 launch lineup is fairly well rounded as you can see from the table below:

CPU	Clock Speed	L2 Cache
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800	2.93GHz	4MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700	2.66GHz	4MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600	2. 40GHz	4MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400	2.13GHz	2MB
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300	1.86GHz	2MB

As the name implies, all Core 2 Duo CPUs are dual core as is the Core 2 Extreme. Hyper Threading is not supported on any Core 2 CPU currently on Intel’s roadmaps, although a similar feature may eventually make its debut in later CPUs. All of the CPUs launching today also support Intel’s Virtualization Technology (VT), run on a 1066MHz FSB and are built using 65nm transistors.

The table above features all of the Core 2 processors Intel will be releasing this year. In early next year Intel will also introduce the E4200, which will be a 1. 60GHz part with only a 800MHz FSB, a 2MB cache and no VT support. The E4200 will remain a dual core part, as single core Core 2 processors won’t debut until late next year. On the opposite end of the spectrum Intel will also introduce Kentsfield in Q1 next year, which will be a Core 2 Extreme branded quad core CPU from Intel.

Core 2 Extreme vs. Core 2 Duo

Previously Intel had differentiated its «Extreme» line of processors by giving them larger caches, a faster FSB, Hyper Threading support, and/or higher clock speeds. With the Core 2 processor family, the Extreme version gets a higher clock speed (2.93GHz vs. 2.66GHz) and this time around it also gets an unlocked multiplier. Intel officially describes this feature as the following:

Core 2 Extreme is not truly «unlocked». Officially (per the BIOS Writers Guide), it is «a frequency limited processor with additional support for ratio overrides higher than the maximum Intel-tested bus-to-core ratio. 2

 

Intel’s smaller die and greater number of manufacturing facilities results in greater flexibility with pricing than AMD.

New Pricing
IndexNew PricingThe TestL2 Cache: 4MB or 2MB?Memory Latency: No Integrated Memory Controller NecessaryFSB Bottlenecks: Is 1333MHz Necessary?Power Consumption: Who is the king?Application Performance using SYSMark 2004 SEApplication Performance using PC WorldBench 5Application Performance using Winstone 20043D Rendering Performance using 3dsmax 7 & CineBench 9.5Encoding Performance using DivX 6.1, WME9, Quicktime (H.264) & iTunesGaming with Core 2 and CrossFire on 975XGaming Performance using Quake 4, Battlefield 2 & Half Life 2 Episode 1Gaming Performance using F.E.A.R. & Rise of LegendsGaming Performance using OblivionCPU Bound Gaming PerformanceOverclockingFinal Words

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 vs Broadcom BCM2711 Benchmarks, Specs, Performance Comparison and Differences

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 vs Broadcom BCM2711

Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 on one side and the Broadcom BCM2711 on the other side. The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, It has 2 cores, 2 threads, a maximum frequency of 3,0GHz. The second is used on the single-board computer segment, it has a total of 4 cores, 4 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 1,5 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values ​​obtained in Geekbench 4 and Cinebench R15.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.

Specification comparison:

Processor		Intel Core 2 Duo E8400				Broadcom BCM2711
Market (main)		Desktop				Single-board computer
ISA		x86-64 (64 bit)				ARMv8-A (64-bit)
Microarchitecture		Penryn				Cortex-A72
Core name		Wolfdale				Cortex-A72
Family		Core 2 Duo 8000				BCM
Part number(s), S-Spec		BX80570E8400, BXC80570E8400, BX80570E8400A, AT80570PJ0806M, EU80570PJ0806M, SLB9J				BCM2711
Release date		Q1 2008				Q2 2019
Lithography		45 nm				28 nm
Transistors		410. 000.000				—
Cores		2				4
Threads		2				4
Base frequency		3,0 GHz				1,5 GHz
Turbo frequency		—				—
High performance cores		—				4x ARM Cortex-A72 @ 1,5 GHz
Cache memory		6 MB				1 MB
Max memory capacity		8 GB				8 GB
Memory types		DDR2-800				LPDDR4-3200 SDRAM
Max PCIe lanes		16				4
TDP		65 W				4 W
Suggested PSU		600W ATX Power Supply				—
GPU integrated graphics		None				Broadcom VideoCore VI
GPU execution units		—				4
GPU shading units		—				64
GPU clock		—				500 MHz
GPU FP32 floating point		—				32 GFLOPS
Socket		LGA775				SoC
Compatible motherboard		Socket LGA 775 Motherboard				—
Drystone MIPS		—				22. 740 DMIPS
Max display resolution		—				4K@60fps
Video decoding		—				H.265 4K@60fps, H.264 1080p@60fps
Video encoding		—				H.264 1080p@30fps
Modem		—				10/100/1000M Gigabit Ethernet
Connectivity		—				USB 2.0, USB 3.0, HDMI 2.0
Wi-Fi		—				2.4GHz/5GHz 802.11 b/g/n/ac
Bluetooth		—				Bluetooth 4.2
Audio		—				I2S
PassMark CPU Mark		1. 151				1.375
(Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 single core		1.831				415
(Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 multi-core		3.028				958
(SGEMM) GFLOPS performance		28,9 GFLOPS				13,5 GFLOPS
(Multi-core / watt performance) Performance / watt ratio		47 pts / W				240 pts / W
Amazon
eBay

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.

Suggested PSU: We assume that we have An ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.

Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.

The processor Broadcom BCM2711 has a larger number of cores, the maximum frequency of Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 is greater, that the thermal dissipation power of Broadcom BCM2711 is less. The Broadcom BCM2711 was started more recently.

Performance comparison with the benchmarks:

Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.

On Windows 64-bit:

	Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows 64-bit
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400	1.831 3.028
Broadcom BCM2711	415 958

In single core, the difference is 341%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 216%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.

Equivalence:

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 AMD equivalentBroadcom BCM2711 Intel equivalentBroadcom BCM2711 AMD equivalent

See also:

Broadcom BCM2710A1Broadcom BCM2711B0Broadcom BCM2711C0

affordable and powerful / processors and memory

3DNews Processors and memory Intel processors Intel Core 2 Duo: affordable and manufac… The most interesting news We explore the capabilities and overclocking potential of Intel Core 2 Duo processors based on the Allendale core, and also compare them with their «predecessors» and competitors ⇣ Contents Authors: Alexander Chernoivan, Evgeny Yakovina The situation with Core 2 Duo processors is no different from everything that happened before. In reviews and test stands, first of all, older and extreme models are found, and the younger ones either fade into the background, or are completely lost in the total mass of all new products entering the market and, thus, remain undeservedly forgotten. But after all, it is they who determine who is actually the winner and who, in fact, will receive most of the money, no matter how trivial it may sound. In our materials, we reflected in sufficient detail the architectural features of Intel Core and carried out a significant number of tests, from the work of new processors with mathematical packages to the effectiveness of Core 2 Duo in gaming applications beloved by all. But it just so happened that the most affordable (consider the most popular) Core 2 Duo processors based on the Allendale core fell out of these same tests. As you may know, the main and only difference (besides, of course, the clock speed) of the junior series from the processors based on the Conroe core lies in the twofold reduction in the size of the L2 cache (up to 2 MB). However, looking ahead, I would like to note that this did not greatly affect performance, and today we will prove it to you. Note that we do not take into account another representative of the series — Core 2 Duo E4300, which, among other things, has had its system bus frequency reduced to 800 MHz. It will be possible to talk about the performance of this processor only after its official announcement, which, according to the latest data, will take place in January 2007. Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400 — «sweet couple» Currently, prices for Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400 processors fluctuate around $200 and $230, respectively. And this means that the direct competitors for them are the dual-core AMD Athlon X2 3800+ and 4000+ and, with a stretch, their brother — the Intel Pentium D 945 with a clock frequency of 3.4 GHz. The distribution of prices among distributors is quite high, so at least conditionally rank the above models in the same price category. Quite a lot of words have already been said about the success of the new Intel architecture. If you still don’t understand something, then feel free to go to the study of the articles «Core 2 Duo processors: shock and awe» and «Intel Conroe dual-core processors». Today we have another task — to study the behavior of processors in practice, to identify their overclocking potential in difficult overclocking conditions (more on that later), and also to compare the manufacturer with the Core 2 Duo on the Conroe core and its closest rivals. This is exactly what we will do today, but first we will consider a pivot table with characteristics. Processor Core Clock frequency, GHz Multiplier Bus frequency, MHz L2 cache size, Mb Typical heat dissipation, W Cost, $ Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe 2. 93 11 1066 4 75 999 Core 2 Duo E6700 Conroe 2.67 10 1066 4 65 530 Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2. 4 9 1066 4 65 316 Core 2 Duo E6400 Allendale 2.13 8 1066 2 65 230 Core 2 Duo E6300 Allendale 1. 86 7 1066 2 65 200 Core 2 Duo E4300 Allendale 1.80 9 800 2 65 ?? This table confirms our words — the differences between the processors are minimal, and those who are not used to overpaying can easily compensate for the difference in clock speed by overclocking. Now let’s take a closer look at processors. Boxed versions of processors look no different from each other. Here are two processors based on the Allendale core and one on the Conroe (Core 2 Duo E6600). The form factor of the box itself has not changed compared to the Pentium D either, only the colors and arrangement of some elements have changed. The package is pretty standard too. This is the “BOX-cooler” from Intel, which has already become popular, with pre-applied factory “chewing gum” and an instruction manual that describes the basic rules for working with the processor: “Do not chew, do not throw, do not heat up in the microwave, well, and so Further…» The marketing name of the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 processor can be deciphered as follows. The letter index at the beginning of the marking, in this case «E», classifies the TDP of the processor, without any relation to the form factor. Thus, the TPD level, in accordance with the official Intel classification, varies between 50-70 watts. In turn, a 4-digit digital index also carries a semantic load. In general, the larger the 4-digit number represented by the processor label, the greater the performance and power consumption it is characterized by. At the same time, the first digit means the chip belongs to a certain product family, the second digit indicates the corresponding arrangement of chips within the family. Accordingly, the larger the number, the more efficient the chip. Of course, this method of labeling chips has nothing to do with the PR ratings of AMD processors, which claim some kind of conditional correspondence to some conditional megahertz of some conditional processor, everything is much simpler: the higher the number, the more productive the chip. Here’s what the CPU-Z utility says about the Core 2 Duo E6300 processor. Despite the reduced amount of L2 cache, the E6300 model, just like the E6400, is endowed with the whole package of technologies inherent in the Core 2 Duo processor line, namely: Intel Wide Dynamic Execution is a technology that executes more instructions per clock cycle to improve application execution efficiency and reduce power consumption. Each processor core can execute up to four instructions simultaneously using a 14-stage pipeline; Intel Intelligent Power Capability — a technology that activates the work of individual chip nodes as needed for the execution of tasks, which significantly reduces the power consumption of the system as a whole; Intel Advanced Smart Cache — a technology for using a common L2 cache for all cores, which reduces overall power consumption and improves performance, while, as necessary, one of the processor cores can use the entire amount of cache memory while dynamically disabling another core; Intel Smart Memory Access is a memory subsystem optimization technology that reduces response time and increases memory subsystem bandwidth; Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost is a single cycle processing technology for 128-bit SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 instructions widely used in multimedia and graphics applications. A set of SSE4 instructions that adds another 52 new processor instructions to speed up the processing of multimedia, text and other data (the CPU-Z application already identifies them). It is worth paying attention to the stepping of the processor. The test copy has B2 stepping. Actually, all technical samples and rare processors of the first batches had B0 and B1 steppings. And all the processors that go on official sale have the B2 stepping. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the overclocking potential of the currently tested samples will be higher than that of the samples previously visited our test lab. In practice, overclocking the younger Core 2 Duo gave a 63% increase in frequency, but this is not the limit. Even with a standard cooler, you can get better results if there is good ventilation inside the case. We conducted the experiment in not the most comfortable conditions, for which we used the inexpensive COLORSit L8037-C45 case, which by default does not have additional heat sinks. In other words, we have determined the worst outcome that an unprepared overclocker would have. Let’s smoothly move on to the consideration of the second processor, whose name is Core 2 Duo E6400. All the differences of the Core 2 Duo processor following the E6300 are reduced to a clock frequency increased by 266 MHz, achieved by changing the multiplier from 7 to 8. The CPU-Z utility confirms this. But contrary to expectations, the processor showed the best result in overclocking. The resulting frequency was 3200 MHz. Finally, we briefly describe the last representative of the line. This is a Core 2 Duo processor based on the Conroe core. It was included in today’s testing for only one reason — to compare its performance with the results demonstrated by younger brothers. Of course, due to the difference in frequency, there is no possibility of a more accurate comparison, however, as you can see for yourself, there will not be a sharp drop in performance. Overclocking of the E6600 showed even better results. The final frequency was 3330 MHz. Definitely, many readers might think that the reason for such low overclocking rates, in addition to factory cooling, could be the weak overclocking capabilities of the motherboard. However, we dare to assure you that after long tests and strength testing of the ASUS P5B Deluxe board, the ceiling of its «overclocking» was determined at around 475 MHz FSB, which, unfortunately, was not achieved with any of the processors tested today. If, nevertheless, we discuss the reasons for some “underclocking” more carefully, then first of all these are deliberately complicated testing conditions — the experimental Core 2 Duo E6300 was able to start at frequencies above 3.2 GHz, but after 5-10 minutes of testing it warmed up above 65 ° C and began to “skip cycles”. True, it is worth mentioning that not only poor ventilation and high temperature can stand in the way of a further increase in clock frequencies — the Core 2 Duo E6600 under study could not be heated above 58 ° C by any means, although further overclocking led to a «blue screen of death» during boot Windows, i. e. the frequency of 3.33 GHz turned out to be the ceiling of stability for him. Now that everything is more or less clear with all the processors, let’s see how the twofold reduction in the amount of cache memory affected in practice, and also compare the performance of the processors with the previously described competitors and the now budget Athlon 64. Testing Test bench for Intel LGA775: Motherboard ASUS P5B Deluxe/Wi-Fi-AP on Intel P965 Memory 2x DDR2-800 512MB GEIL PC6400 (5-5-5-15) Hard disk Samsung HD080HJ (80 GB, 7200 rpm, 8 MB, SATA-300) Video card ASUS EN7600GT/2DHTV 256MB GDDR3 Power supply SuperPower 480X, 480W Housing COLORSit L8037-C45 Operating system Microsoft Windows XP SP2 Drivers NVIDIA ForceWare 91. 31 WHQL We start, as always, with synthetic tests. Before us emerges quite natural result. The performance of the Core 2 Duo line is progressively increasing, thanks to the increasing frequency of each processor. Moreover, it should be noted that the increase in performance from E6300 to E6400 (according to SiSoftware Sandra) is ~ 13%, and, given the fact that the increase in clock frequency from E6400 to E6600 is directly proportional to the two previous processors, then the resulting increase of 12% is directly indicates minimal cache impact in this case. A similar picture is in PCMark’05. Overclocking the Core 2 Duo 6300 to 3030 MHz once again proves that the «extra» 2 MB is not really needed by the processor. The rest of the test subjects show a natural lag, except that in the memory bandwidth test, AMD shows the best result. Let’s move on to practical tests for information compression (a 1 GB folder with programs and documents is archived), as well as audio encoding (540 MB *. wav to *.mp3) and video (74 MB mpeg video to *.avi). Here, the faster the better. But in archiving, the situation is somewhat different. If reseeding from the E6300 to the E6400 you get only 8% increase in «return», then by installing the E6600, in comparison with the E6400, there is an obvious progress — as much as 16%. The rest of the processors are far behind. The impact of the cache size in this test is once again reduced. Processors show a proportional increase in performance. The picture is similar for video encoding. However, this test has always been famous for its “love” for high frequencies. Thanks to this, the Pentium D does not look so bad against the background of its older relatives. In the SPECviewperf 9.0 test, the alignment of forces changes radically. Now AMD doesn’t give in so much to Core 2 Duo, and due to weak optimization of the test package for multi-core processors, the single-core Athlon 64 3200+ Socket AM2 even managed to almost catch up with Core 2 Duo E6300. The Pentium D 945 managed to do the same, thanks to the high operating clock frequencies. Test packages from the Finnish company Futuremark demonstrate the traditional dependence on video cards, so there are no strong “dips” in performance. However, with the installation of a more powerful graphics accelerator, the results will change somewhat. We have already seen this in previous articles on Core 2 Duo. Now let’s move on to the most beloved, to toys. Quake 3 is very sensitive not only to the performance of the processor itself, but also to the speed of work with the memory subsystem. The result of the Core 2 Duo is quite natural — everything is in order with it: and with performance; and with the system bus, which began to work faster; and with the P965 chipset, which does not introduce unnecessary delays when accessing memory. Again, a natural and quite expected result. The difference between the processors of the Core 2 Duo line is felt very weakly. The approximate gap between the entire series and Pentium D and competing solutions is 25%, in Half-Life 2 the results are practically the same (the «weak» video subsystem has another effect — Core 2 Duo still needs a more expensive 3D accelerator). Pins So, it seems to us that readers have already drawn their own conclusions and do not need any further comments on all of the above. The victory of Core 2 Duo is obvious. As for the purpose of our study, everything is clear here too. Reducing the amount of cache memory in the processors E6300 and E6400 to 2 MB was not critical. In most tests, the difference is practically not noticeable, but somewhere it is not at all. In other words, the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400 processors are excellent candidates for the «Must Have» title. They have an acceptable cost, as well as high overclocking potential in the presence of a high-quality motherboard and well-organized cooling (however, the latter factor is no longer as critical as it used to be). In addition, and most importantly, there is not a single competitor in the chosen price category that could seriously compete with the new brainchild of the semiconductor giant. We express our gratitude to the company PF Service LLC (Dnepropetrovsk) for the processors and other equipment provided for testing. ⇣ Contents If you notice an error, select it with the mouse and press CTRL+ENTER. Related materials Permanent URL: https://3dnews.ru/186424/page-1.html ⇣ Comments

Intel Core 2 4400: specifications and tests of the processor

Intel began selling the Core 2 4400 on July 1, 2007. This is a desktop processor, it has 2 cores and 2 threads, the processor is made according to the 65 nm process technology.

Processor made for LGA775 socket, TDP 65W. Supported memory types DDR3, DDR2, DDR1.

Specifications

General information

Release date

Third quarter 2007

Market price

$70

Purpose

Desktop

Architecture

Conroe

Process

65 nm

Crystal size

111 mm²

Number of transistors

167 million

Processor capacity

64 bit

Frequencies and performance

Clock frequency

2000 MHz

Maximum frequency

2000 MHz

Number of cores

2

Number of threads

2

Level 1 cache

64 KB

Level 2 cache

2 MB

Level 3 cache

2 MB

Unlocked multiplier

+

Permissible core voltage

0. 85V-1.5V

Memory

Memory type

DDR3, DDR2, DDR1

Compatible

Socket

LGA775

Heat dissipation

65 W

Maximum number of processors in

configuration

1

Windows 11 support

No

Technology and instructions

Safety technology

EDB

Other technologies

EIST, C-states

Benchmarks

Interesting to know:

Webcam test instruction for computer.

Comparison with other processors

Processor 1:

Processor 2:

Interesting information:

Camera testing online.