Atom N2600 vs E-300
Aggregate performance score
Atom N2600 outperforms E-300 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E-300 and Atom N2600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3199 | 3179 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 1.10 | 5.44 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Cedarview-M (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 22 August 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $47 |
Detailed specifications
E-300 and Atom N2600 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 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 66 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 176 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on E-300 and Atom N2600 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 | FCBGA559 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 3.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-300 and Atom N2600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVM | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
Security technologies
E-300 and Atom N2600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-300 and Atom N2600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-300 and Atom N2600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2.44 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3600 (400 MHz) |
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.
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.
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.
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.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.21 | 0.23 |
| Recency | 22 August 2011 | 1 December 2011 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 3 Watt |
Atom N2600 has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, 100% more threads, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 500% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between E-300 and Atom N2600.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-300 and Atom N2600, 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.
