AMD E-300 vs AMD E-350

AMD E-300

► remove

The AMD E-300 (codename Zacate) is a dual 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-300 two Bobcat cores can access 512KB level 2 cache per core. 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 lies a bit beyond a Athlon X2 L310 at 1.2 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. Furthermore, the E-300 also support HTMI 1.4a.

The power consumption is rated with a TDP of 18 Watt by AMD. According to first reviews of Brazos prototypes the power consumption was between 11 to 29 Watt. This would be on a level of a (much more powerful) 11" MacBook Air using Windows 7.

AMD E-350

► remove

The AMD E-350 (codename Zacate) is a dual 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-350 two Bobcat cores can access 512KB level 2 cache per core. 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-350 lies a bit beyond a Celeron SU2300 at 1.2 GHz or a Athlon II Neo K325 at 1.3 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. According to first reviews of Brazos prototypes the power consumption was between 11 to 29 Watt. This would be on a level of a (much more powerful) 11" MacBook Air using Windows 7.

AMD E-300AMD E-350
AMD E-SeriesAMD E-Series
ZacateZacate
: E-Series Zacate
AMD E2-2000 (compare)1750 MHz2 / 2
AMD E2-1800 (compare)1700 MHz2 / 2
AMD E-450 (compare)1650 MHz2 / 2
AMD E-3501600 MHz2 / 2
AMD E1-1500 (compare)1480 MHz2 / 2
AMD E1-1200 (compare)1400 MHz2 / 2
» AMD E-3001300 MHz2 / 2
AMD E-240 (compare)1500 MHz1 / 1
AMD E2-2000 (compare)1750 MHz2 / 2
AMD E2-1800 (compare)1700 MHz2 / 2
AMD E-450 (compare)1650 MHz2 / 2
» AMD E-3501600 MHz2 / 2
AMD E1-1500 (compare)1480 MHz2 / 2
AMD E1-1200 (compare)1400 MHz2 / 2
AMD E-3001300 MHz2 / 2
AMD E-240 (compare)1500 MHz1 / 1
1300 MHz1600 MHz
128 KB128 KB
1 MB1 MB
2 / 22 / 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
iGPUAMD Radeon HD 6310AMD Radeon HD 6310

Cinebench R11.5 - CPU Multi 64Bit
min: 0.46     avg: 0.5     median: 0.5 (2%)     max: 0.5 Points
min: 0.59     avg: 0.6     median: 0.6 (2%)     max: 0.62 Points
Cinebench R11.5 - CPU Single 64Bit
min: 0.24     avg: 0.3     median: 0.3 (10%)     max: 0.26 Points
Cinebench R10 - Rendering Single 32Bit
853 Points (9%)
min: 1029     avg: 1048.3     median: 1048.5 (11%)     max: 1064 Points
Cinebench R10 - Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
1176 Points (2%)
min: 1887     avg: 1997     median: 2005 (4%)     max: 2080 Points
Cinebench R10 - Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit
min: 1714     avg: 1761.5     median: 1761.5 (2%)     max: 1809 Points
min: 2034     avg: 2181.8     median: 2195.5 (3%)     max: 2250 Points
Cinebench R10 - Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit
min: 899     avg: 920     median: 920 (9%)     max: 941 Points
min: 1122     avg: 1140     median: 1140 (11%)     max: 1158 Points
wPrime 2.0x - 1024m *
2511 seconds (30%)
min: 2054     avg: 2129.9     median: 2093 (25%)     max: 2257.48 seconds
wPrime 2.0x - 32m *
79 seconds (16%)
min: 64     avg: 68.7     median: 68.8 (14%)     max: 72.09 seconds
3DMark 06 - CPU
min: 836     avg: 838.5     median: 838.5 (6%)     max: 841 Points
min: 985     avg: 1015.9     median: 1021 (7%)     max: 1033 Points
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
min: 59     avg: 59.5     median: 59.5 (13%)     max: 60 Seconds
min: 49     avg: 51.2     median: 50 (11%)     max: 61 Seconds
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
min: 132     avg: 133.5     median: 133.5 (6%)     max: 135 Seconds
min: 109     avg: 111.6     median: 112 (5%)     max: 115 Seconds
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M *
min: 2920     avg: 2940.5     median: 2940.5 (13%)     max: 2961 Seconds
min: 2409.83     avg: 2465.9     median: 2460 (11%)     max: 2539 Seconds
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
min: 9290     avg: 9646.7     median: 9790 (5%)     max: 9860 MIPS
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
min: 7490     avg: 7520     median: 7530 (6%)     max: 7540 MFLOPS
Windows 7 Experience Index - Processor
3.4 points (44%)
min: 3.7     avg: 3.8     median: 3.8 (49%)     max: 3.8 points
3DMark Vantage - P CPU no PhysX 1280x1024
min: 1544     avg: 1579.5     median: 1579.5 (3%)     max: 1615 Points
min: 1818     avg: 1932.7     median: 1982 (3%)     max: 1998 Points
3DMark 11 - Performance Physics 1280x720
min: 605     avg: 638     median: 609 (3%)     max: 690 points

Average Benchmarks AMD E-300 → 100%

Average Benchmarks AMD E-350 → 115%

-
-
* 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), 2019, 2018
v1.8.1a
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)