Celeron E3200 vs i7-950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-950
2009
4 cores / 8 threads, 130 Watt
2.03
+256%
Celeron E3200
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.57

Core i7-950 outperforms Celeron E3200 by a whopping 256% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-950 and Celeron E3200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19192833
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.172.88
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesCore i7 (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency1.480.83
Architecture codenameBloomfield (2008−2010)Wolfdale (2008−2010)
Release date2 June 2009 (15 years ago)30 August 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$290$52

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron E3200 has 1594% better value for money than i7-950.

Detailed specifications

Core i7-950 and Celeron E3200 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads82
Base clock speed3.06 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.33 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (shared)
L3 cache8 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size263 mm282 mm2
Maximum core temperature68 °C74 °C
Number of transistors731 million228 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.3625V

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-950 and Celeron E3200 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.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFCLGA1366LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-950 and Celeron E3200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE36 Bitno data

Security technologies

Core i7-950 and Celeron E3200 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-950 and Celeron E3200 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-950 and Celeron E3200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1, DDR2, DDR3
Maximum memory size24 GBno data
Max memory channels3no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-950 and Celeron E3200.

PCIe version2.02.0

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.

i7-950 2.03
+256%
Celeron E3200 0.57

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.

i7-950 3222
+258%
Celeron E3200 900

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.03 0.57
Recency 2 June 2009 30 August 2009
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 8 2
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 65 Watt

i7-950 has a 256.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Celeron E3200, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Core i7-950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3200 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-950 and Celeron E3200, 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.


Intel Core i7-950
Core i7-950
Intel Celeron E3200
Celeron E3200

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.


3.3 338 votes

Rate Core i7-950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 76 votes

Rate Celeron E3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-950 or Celeron E3200, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.