Xeon E7-8880 v3 vs Core 2 Duo E8400

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo E8400
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.73
Xeon E7-8880 v3
2015
18 cores / 36 threads, 150 Watt
11.49
+1474%

Xeon E7-8880 v3 outperforms Core 2 Duo E8400 by a whopping 1474% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E7-8880 v3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2671677
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.067.77
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)Haswell-EX (2015)
Release date1 January 2008 (16 years ago)1 June 2015 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E7-8880 v3 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)18 (Octadeca-Core)
Threads236
Base clock speed3 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.1 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHz9.6 GT/s
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache6 MB (shared)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB45 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm22 nm
Die size104 mm2160 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data77 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 million1,400 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E7-8880 v3 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 configuration18
SocketLGA775FCLGA2011
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt150 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E7-8880 v3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AVX2
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAEno data46 Bit
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E7-8880 v3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E7-8880 v3 are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E7-8880 v3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data1.5 TB
Max memory channelsno data4
Maximum memory bandwidthno data85 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E7-8880 v3.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data32

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.

Core 2 Duo E8400 0.73
Xeon E7-8880 v3 11.49
+1474%

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.

Core 2 Duo E8400 1165
Xeon E7-8880 v3 18244
+1466%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.73 11.49
Recency 1 January 2008 1 June 2015
Physical cores 2 18
Threads 2 36
Chip lithography 45 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 150 Watt

Core 2 Duo E8400 has 130.8% lower power consumption.

Xeon E7-8880 v3, on the other hand, has a 1474% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 800% more physical cores and 1700% more threads, and a 104.5% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon E7-8880 v3 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E8400 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Duo E8400 is a desktop processor while Xeon E7-8880 v3 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E7-8880 v3, 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 2 Duo E8400
Core 2 Duo E8400
Intel Xeon E7-8880 v3
Xeon E7-8880 v3

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.


3.7 2278 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo E8400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 26 votes

Rate Xeon E7-8880 v3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo E8400 or Xeon E7-8880 v3, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.