Core i3-4000M vs E2-9000

Core i3-4000M vs E2-9000 Performance Spectrum

Core i3-4000M

2 / 4

1,797

+0.6%

1,787

0.0%

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 i3-4000M vs E2-9000 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 i3-4000M vs E2-9000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i3-4000M

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

E2-9000

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,787 vs 1,797).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-4000M better than E2-9000?

Yes. Core i3-4000M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i3-4000M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.4% 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, Core i3-4000M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-4000M still makes the most sense overall. Core i3-4000M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

E2-9000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i3-4000M vs E2-9000 Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-4000M

The Core i3-4000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,797 points. Launch price was $225.

E2-9000

The E2-9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: BGA. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,787 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-4000M packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the E2-9000's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Core i3-4000M versus 2.2 GHz on the E2-9000 — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Core i3-4000M (base: 2.4 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Core i3-4000M uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the E2-9000 uses Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-4000M scores 1,797 against the E2-9000's 1,787 — a 0.6% lead for the Core i3-4000M.

Feature	Core i3-4000M	E2-9000
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+9%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+33%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	22 nm-21%	28 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
PassMark	1,797	1,787

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-4000M uses the PGA946 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E2-9000 uses BGA (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.