Core 2 Duo SU9400 vs E2-3000M

Core 2 Duo SU9400 vs E2-3000M Performance Spectrum

Core 2 Duo SU9400

2 / 2

1,596

0.0%

1,597

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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 SU9400 vs E2-3000M 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.

Core 2 Duo SU9400 vs E2-3000M: 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 SU9400

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 35W, a 32W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,596 vs 1,597).

E2-3000M

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌1066.7% higher power demand at 35W vs 3W.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-3000M better than Core 2 Duo SU9400?

Yes. E2-3000M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, E2-3000M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E2-3000M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

E2-3000M still makes the most sense overall. E2-3000M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

E2-3000M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core 2 Duo SU9400 vs E2-3000M Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core 2 Duo SU9400

The Core 2 Duo SU9400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,596 points. Launch price was $262.

E2-3000M

The E2-3000M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,597 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core 2 Duo SU9400 and E2-3000M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the Core 2 Duo SU9400 versus 2.4 GHz on the E2-3000M — a 52.6% clock advantage for the E2-3000M (base: 1.4 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Core 2 Duo SU9400 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the E2-3000M uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo SU9400 scores 1,596 against the E2-3000M's 1,597 — a 0.1% lead for the E2-3000M. L3 cache: 3 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Duo SU9400 vs 0 kB on the E2-3000M.

Feature	Core 2 Duo SU9400	E2-3000M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	2.4 GHz+71%
Base Clock	1.4 GHz	1.8 GHz+29%
L3 Cache	3 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	3 MB	512K (per core)+16967%
Process	45 nm	32 nm-29%
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Llano (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,596	1,597

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Duo SU9400 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E2-3000M uses FS1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.