Core 2 Duo SL9400 vs Athlon II N330

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II N330
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.42
Core 2 Duo SL9400
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.48
+14.3%

Core 2 Duo SL9400 outperforms Athlon II N330 by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II N330 and Core 2 Duo SL9400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29722902
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Athlon IIIntel Core 2 Duo
Power efficiency1.142.67
Architecture codenameChamplain (2010−2011)Penryn (2008−2011)
Release date12 May 2010 (14 years ago)20 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$284

Detailed specifications

Athlon II N330 and Core 2 Duo SL9400 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speedno data1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz1.86 GHz
Bus rate3200 MHz1066 MHz
L1 cache256 KBno data
L2 cache1 MB6 MB
L3 cacheno data6 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size117.5 mm2107 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors234 Million410 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data1.05V - 1.15V

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II N330 and Core 2 Duo SL9400 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

SocketS1BGA956
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II N330 and Core 2 Duo SL9400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualizationno data
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Athlon II N330 and Core 2 Duo SL9400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II N330 and Core 2 Duo SL9400 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II N330 and Core 2 Duo SL9400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon II N330 0.42
Core 2 Duo SL9400 0.48
+14.3%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Athlon II N330 665
Core 2 Duo SL9400 759
+14.1%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Athlon II N330 1999
Core 2 Duo SL9400 2144
+7.3%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Athlon II N330 3837
Core 2 Duo SL9400 3850
+0.3%

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Athlon II N330 1943
+49.5%
Core 2 Duo SL9400 1300

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.42 0.48
Recency 12 May 2010 20 August 2008
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 17 Watt

Athlon II N330 has an age advantage of 1 year.

Core 2 Duo SL9400, on the other hand, has a 14.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 105.9% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Duo SL9400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II N330 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II N330 and Core 2 Duo SL9400, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon II N330
Athlon II N330
Intel Core 2 Duo SL9400
Core 2 Duo SL9400

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


5 2 votes

Rate Athlon II N330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 4 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo SL9400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II N330 or Core 2 Duo SL9400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.