Mobile Pentium 4 3.06 vs E-350
Aggregate performance score
E-350 outperforms Mobile Pentium 4 3.06 by a whopping 100% 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 | 3428 | 3622 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.43 | 0.18 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | June 2003 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
E-350 and Mobile Pentium 4 3.06 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.07 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on E-350 and Mobile Pentium 4 3.06 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 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 70 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-350 and Mobile Pentium 4 3.06. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-350 and Mobile Pentium 4 3.06 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-350 and Mobile Pentium 4 3.06. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | 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 | 0.24 | 0.12 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 70 Watt |
E-350 has a 100% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores, a 225% more advanced lithography process, and 288.9% lower power consumption.
The AMD E-350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Mobile Pentium 4 3.06 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
