E-350 vs Athlon 64 X2 TK-57
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and E-350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 | AMD E-Series |
| Architecture codename | Hawk-256 | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and E-350 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.9 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | no data | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and E-350 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FT1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and E-350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and E-350 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and E-350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6310 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 18 Watt |
E-350 has a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 72.2% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and E-350. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and E-350, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
