E2-3000M vs Core 2 Duo E6850

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo E6850
2007
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.72
+71.4%
E2-3000M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.42

Core 2 Duo E6850 outperforms E2-3000M by an impressive 71% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and E2-3000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27103005
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore 2 Duo (Desktop)AMD E-Series
Power efficiency1.061.14
Architecture codenameConroe (2006−2007)Llano (2011−2012)
Release dateno data20 December 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and E2-3000M 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speedno data1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB128 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm32 nm
Die size143 mm2228 mm2
Number of transistors291 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and E2-3000M 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 configuration11
Socket775FS1
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and E2-3000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataSSE4.1/2, 3DNow, Radeon HD 6380G
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and E2-3000M are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and E2-3000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6380G

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Core 2 Duo E6850 0.72
+71.4%
E2-3000M 0.42

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.

Core 2 Duo E6850 1154
+72.8%
E2-3000M 668

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.

Core 2 Duo E6850 332
+43.7%
E2-3000M 231

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.

Core 2 Duo E6850 559
+31.2%
E2-3000M 426

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Core 2 Duo E6850 3057
+91.4%
E2-3000M 1597

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Core 2 Duo E6850 5830
+93.4%
E2-3000M 3014

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.72 0.42
Chip lithography 65 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

Core 2 Duo E6850 has a 71.4% higher aggregate performance score.

E2-3000M, on the other hand, has a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Duo E6850 is our recommended choice as it beats the E2-3000M in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Duo E6850 is a desktop processor while E2-3000M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6850 and E2-3000M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Duo E6850
Core 2 Duo E6850
AMD E2-3000M
E2-3000M

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3 74 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo E6850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 54 votes

Rate E2-3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo E6850 or E2-3000M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.