GX-210JA vs Atom E680
Aggregate performance score
GX-210JA outperforms Atom E680 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3642 | 3615 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD |
| Power efficiency | 1.37 | 0.99 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | no data |
| Architecture codename | Tunnel Creek (2010) | Temash (2013) |
| Release date | 14 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (12 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Atom E680 and GX-210JA 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 26 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 47 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Atom E680 and GX-210JA 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | Intel BGA 676 | FT3 BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom E680 and GX-210JA. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom E680 and GX-210JA. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel GMA 600 | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.13 | 0.14 |
| Recency | 14 September 2010 | 23 May 2013 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 6 Watt |
Atom E680 has 50% lower power consumption.
GX-210JA, on the other hand, has a 7.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Intel Atom E680 and AMD GX-210JA.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
