, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

AMD E-240 vs AMD E-300

AMD E-240

► remove from comparison

The AMD E-240 (codename Zacate) is a single core processor for small notebooks and netbooks. It offers a relatively powerful integrated graphics card and a single channel DDR3-1066 memory controller.

Inside the E-240 one Bobcat core (the second one is deactivated) can access 512KB level 2 cache. In comparison to the Atom processors, the Bobcat architecture uses an "out-of-order" execution and is therefore faster at the same clock speed. However, the performance is far worse than similar clocked Penryn (Celeron) or Danube (AMD V-Series) cores. On average the cpu performance of the E-240 should be between a 2 GHz Atom and a Celeron single core with 1.1 GHz.

The integrated Radeon HD 6310 graphics card offers 80 shaders and an UVD3 video processor. Compared to the slow GMA 3150 in the Atom processors, the HD6310 offers a lot more performance and is about as fast as the Nvidia ION graphics solution.

The power consumption is rated with a TDP of 18 Watt by AMD.

AMD E-300

► remove from comparison

The AMD E-300 (codename Zacate) is a low-end dual-core processor designed for the smaller laptops and netbooks. The E-series processor has a relatively fast iGPU and a single channel DDR3-1066 memory controller.

An E-300 has two Bobcat processor cores running at 1.3 GHz, each with the access to 512 KB of Level 2 cache (1 M in total). In comparison to the Atom processors, the Bobcat architecture uses an out-of-order execution and is therefore faster at the same clock speed. However, the performance is far worse than similar clocked Penryn (Celeron) or Danube (Athlon II) cores. On average, the CPU performance of the E-300 is a little better than the Athlon X2 L310 (1.2 GHz).

The Radeon HD 6310 iGPU has 80 unified shaders and an UVD3 video processing engine. The iGPU has no trouble outshining the Intel GMA 3150 in the Atom processors, and it does not lag behind the Nvidia ION, either. The Radeon has support for HDMI 1.4a video output.

The power consumption (TDP) is at around 18 W according to AMD. The first reviews of Brazos prototypes, however, revealed the power consumption of between 11 to 29 W, pretty much on par with the (much more powerful) 11-inch MacBook Air running Windows 7.

AMD E-240AMD E-300
AMD E-SeriesAMD E-Series
ZacateZacate
Series: E-Series Zacate
AMD E2-2000 compare1.75 GHz2 / 2
AMD E2-1800 compare1.7 GHz2 / 2
AMD E-450 compare1.65 GHz2 / 2
AMD E-350 compare1.6 GHz2 / 2
AMD E1-1500 compare1.48 GHz2 / 2
AMD E1-1200 compare1.4 GHz2 / 2
AMD E-3001.3 GHz2 / 2
» AMD E-2401.5 GHz1 / 1
AMD E2-2000 compare1.75 GHz2 / 2
AMD E2-1800 compare1.7 GHz2 / 2
AMD E-450 compare1.65 GHz2 / 2
AMD E-350 compare1.6 GHz2 / 2
AMD E1-1500 compare1.48 GHz2 / 2
AMD E1-1200 compare1.4 GHz2 / 2
» AMD E-3001.3 GHz2 / 2
AMD E-2401.5 GHz1 / 1
1500 MHz1300 MHz
64 KB128 KB
512 KB1 MB
1 / 12 / 2
18 18
40 40
75 mm275 mm2
FT1 BGA 413-BallFT1 BGA 413-Ball
MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-VMMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V
Architecturex86x86
iGPUAMD Radeon HD 6310

Benchmarks

Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64 Bit
0.3 Points (0%)
min: 0.46     avg: 0.5     median: 0.5 (1%)     max: 0.5 Points
Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64 Bit
100%
1 E-300 +
min: 0.24     avg: 0.3     median: 0.3 (8%)     max: 0.26 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
min: 891     avg: 938     median: 937.5 (8%)     max: 984
853 (8%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
100%
1 E-300 +
1176 (2%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (64bit)
100%
1 E-300 +
min: 1714     avg: 1762     median: 1761.5 (2%)     max: 1809 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (64bit)
min: 988     avg: 1016     median: 1015.5 (7%)     max: 1043 Points
min: 899     avg: 920     median: 920 (7%)     max: 941 Points
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 1024m *
4472 s (53%)
2511 s (30%)
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 32m *
137 s (28%)
79 s (16%)
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
min: 497     avg: 501     median: 500.5 (3%)     max: 504 Points
min: 836     avg: 839     median: 838.5 (5%)     max: 841 Points
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
57.5 s (12%)
min: 59     avg: 59.5     median: 59.5 (13%)     max: 60 s
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
120 s (5%)
min: 132     avg: 134     median: 133.5 (6%)     max: 135 s
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 32M *
100%
1 E-300 +
min: 2920     avg: 2941     median: 2940.5 (13%)     max: 2961 s
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
100%
1 E-240 +
min: 3750     avg: 4097     median: 4270 (2%)     max: 4270 MIPS
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
100%
1 E-240 +
min: 3520     avg: 3730     median: 3520 (3%)     max: 4150 MFLOPS
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 CPU
2.5 Points (32%)
3.4 Points (44%)
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. CPU no Physx
100%
1 E-300 +
min: 1544     avg: 1580     median: 1579.5 (2%)     max: 1615 Points
3DMark 11 - 3DM11 Performance Physics
100%
1 E-240 +
269 Points (1%)

Average Benchmarks AMD E-240 → 100% n=9

Average Benchmarks AMD E-300 → 126% n=9

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list:

show all (including archived), 2021, 2020
v1.16
log 20. 20:23:50

#0 checking url part for id 1511 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 2854 +0s ... 0s

#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:09:15 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#4 composed specs +0.005s ... 0.005s

#5 did output specs +0s ... 0.005s

#6 getting avg benchmarks for device 1511 +0s ... 0.005s

#7 got single benchmarks 1511 +0.008s ... 0.013s

#8 getting avg benchmarks for device 2854 +0s ... 0.014s

#9 got single benchmarks 2854 +0.007s ... 0.02s

#10 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.02s

#11 min, max, avg, median took s +0.009s ... 0.03s

#12 return log +0.004s ... 0.034s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Benchmarks / Tech > Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11)