
Core 2 Duo E8335

Core i7-620UM
Core 2 Duo E8335 vs Core i7-620UM Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Core 2 Duo E8335 vs Core i7-620UM FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core 2 Duo E8335 vs Core i7-620UM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Core 2 Duo E8335
2009Why buy it
- β +0.3% higher PassMark.
- β Costs $78 less on MSRP ($200 MSRP vs $278 MSRP).
- β Delivers 39.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.5 vs 3.9 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $278 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- β144.4% higher power demand at 44W vs 18W.
- βNo integrated graphics, while Core i7-620UM can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core i7-620UM
2010Why buy it
- β Draws 18W instead of 44W, a 26W reduction.
- β 100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- β Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake), while Core 2 Duo E8335 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- βLower PassMark (1,091 vs 1,094).
- βLower PassMark per dollar, at 3.9 vs 5.5 PassMark/$ ($278 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is Core i7-620UM better than Core 2 Duo E8335?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Core 2 Duo E8335 vs Core i7-620UM Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core 2 Duo E8335
The Core 2 Duo E8335 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008β2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.933 GHz, with boost up to 0.93 GHz. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,094 points. Launch price was $249.

Core i7-620UM
The Core i7-620UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010β2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.06 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 1,091 points. Launch price was $278.
Processing Power
The Core 2 Duo E8335 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-620UM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 0.93 GHz on the Core 2 Duo E8335 versus 2.13 GHz on the Core i7-620UM β a 78.4% clock advantage for the Core i7-620UM (base: 2.933 GHz vs 1.06 GHz). The Core 2 Duo E8335 uses the Penryn (2008β2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Core i7-620UM uses Arrandale (2010β2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo E8335 scores 1,094 against the Core i7-620UM's 1,091 β a 0.3% lead for the Core 2 Duo E8335.
| Feature | Core 2 Duo E8335 | Core i7-620UM |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 0.93 GHz | 2.13 GHz+129% |
| Base Clock | 2.933 GHz+177% | 1.06 GHz |
| L3 Cache | β | 4 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB (total)+2300% | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 32 nm-29% |
| Architecture | Penryn (2008β2011) | Arrandale (2010β2011) |
| PassMark | 1,094 | 1,091 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | β | 350 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | β | 700 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 2 Duo E8335 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i7-620UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) β making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core 2 Duo E8335 | Core i7-620UM |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | P | BGA1288 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | β | DDR3-1066 |
| Max RAM Capacity | β | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | β | 2 |
| ECC Support | β | No |
| PCIe Lanes | β | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Core 2 Duo E8335) / VT-x (Core i7-620UM). The Core i7-620UM includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)), while the Core 2 Duo E8335 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-620UM targets Ultra-Portable Laptop. Direct competitor: Core i7-620UM rivals Core 2 Duo SU9600.
| Feature | Core 2 Duo E8335 | Core i7-620UM |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | β | Yes |
| IGPU Model | β | Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake) |
| Unlocked | β | No |
| AVX-512 | β | No |
| Virtualization | β | VT-x |
| Target Use | β | Ultra-Portable Laptop |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core 2 Duo E8335 was priced at $200, while the Core i7-620UM came in at $278. On launch pricing ($200 vs $278), Core 2 Duo E8335 was $78 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 2 Duo E8335 delivers 5.5 pts/$ vs 3.9 pts/$ for the Core i7-620UM β making the Core 2 Duo E8335 the 32.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core 2 Duo E8335 | Core i7-620UM |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $200-28% | $278 |
| Performance per Dollar | 5.5+41% | 3.9 |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2010 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














