E-240 vs E-300

VS

Aggregate performance score

E-300
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.21
+75%

E-300 outperforms E-240 by an impressive 75% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E-300 and E-240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31993339
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD E-SeriesAMD E-Series
Power efficiency1.100.63
Architecture codenameZacate (2011−2013)Zacate (2011−2013)
Release date22 August 2011 (13 years ago)4 January 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

E-300 and E-240 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Boost clock speed1.3 GHz1.5 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)64 KB
L2 cache512K (per core)512 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography40 nm40 nm
Die size75 mm275 mm2
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E-300 and E-240 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
SocketFT1FT1 BGA 413-Ball
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt18 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-300 and E-240. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVMMMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-300 and E-240 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-300 and E-240. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3 Single-channel

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6310AMD 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.


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.

E-300 0.21
+75%
E-240 0.12

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.

E-300 339
+73.8%
E-240 195

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.

E-300 88
E-240 107
+21.6%

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.

E-300 152
+36.9%
E-240 111

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.

E-300 853
E-240 938
+9.9%

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.

E-300 839
+67.5%
E-240 501

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.

E-300 79
+73.9%
E-240 137.4

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

E-300 0
+84.6%
E-240 0

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.21 0.12
Recency 22 August 2011 4 January 2011
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1

E-300 has a 75% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The E-300 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-240 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E-300 and E-240, 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.


AMD E-300
E-300
AMD E-240
E-240

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.

Community ratings

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


2.4 303 votes

Rate E-300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 55 votes

Rate E-240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E-300 or E-240, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.