A4-1200 vs E1-1200
Primary details
Comparing E1-1200 and A4-1200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | AMD A-Series |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Temash (2013) |
| Release date | 6 June 2012 (11 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $74 | $55 |
Detailed specifications
E1-1200 and A4-1200 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 | 1.4 GHz | 1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128K (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 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 100 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on E1-1200 and A4-1200 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 | FT3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 4 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E1-1200 and A4-1200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | DDR3-1066 RAM (sin. chan.), PCIe 2 [?], MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, DDR3L-1066 |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| PowerNow | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E1-1200 and A4-1200 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E1-1200 and A4-1200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 7310 | AMD Radeon HD 8180 |
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
E1-1200 outperforms A4-1200 by 3% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
A4-1200 outperforms E1-1200 by 15% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
A4-1200 outperforms E1-1200 by 16% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
E1-1200 outperforms A4-1200 by 29% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
E1-1200 outperforms A4-1200 by 35% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
E1-1200 outperforms A4-1200 by 19% in 3DMark06 CPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
A4-1200 outperforms E1-1200 by 47% in wPrime 32.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
E1-1200 outperforms A4-1200 by 26% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
E1-1200 outperforms A4-1200 by 13% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
WinRAR 4.0
WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
A4-1200 outperforms E1-1200 by 7% in WinRAR 4.0.
Geekbench 2
Benchmark coverage: 5%
E1-1200 outperforms A4-1200 by 3% in Geekbench 2.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 6 June 2012 | 23 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 4 Watt |
We couldn't decide between E1-1200 and A4-1200. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between E1-1200 and A4-1200, 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.
