GX-210JA vs E-450
Aggregate performance score
E-450 outperforms GX-210JA by a whopping 200% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E-450 and GX-210JA processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2895 | 3292 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Temash (2013) |
| Release date | 22 August 2011 (13 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
E-450 and GX-210JA 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 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.65 GHz | 1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on E-450 and GX-210JA 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 | no data |
| Socket | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | FT3 BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-450 and GX-210JA. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-450 and GX-210JA are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-450 and GX-210JA. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 Single-channel | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6320 | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.48 | 0.16 |
| Recency | 22 August 2011 | 23 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 6 Watt |
E-450 has a 200% higher aggregate performance score.
GX-210JA, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The E-450 is our recommended choice as it beats the GX-210JA in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-450 and GX-210JA, 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.
