Ryzen Threadripper 1920 vs E-240
Primary details
Comparing E-240 and Ryzen Threadripper 1920 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 514 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD E-Series | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 29 July 2017 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
E-240 and Ryzen Threadripper 1920 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) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 9,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on E-240 and Ryzen Threadripper 1920 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | SP3r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 140 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-240 and Ryzen Threadripper 1920. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-240 and Ryzen Threadripper 1920 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-240 and Ryzen Threadripper 1920. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 Single-channel | DDR4 Quad-channel |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | no data |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 29 July 2017 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 12 |
| Threads | 1 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 140 Watt |
E-240 has 677.8% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 1920, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between E-240 and Ryzen Threadripper 1920. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that E-240 is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-240 and Ryzen Threadripper 1920, 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.
