Celeron 6305 vs E1-6010

VS

Aggregate performance score

E1-6010
2014
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.34
Celeron 6305
2020
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.31
+285%

Celeron 6305 outperforms E1-6010 by a whopping 285% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E1-6010 and Celeron 6305 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30812276
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD E-SeriesIntel Tiger Lake
Power efficiency3.228.26
Architecture codenameBeema (2014)Tiger Lake-U (2020)
Release date29 April 2014 (10 years ago)1 September 2020 (4 years ago)

Detailed specifications

E1-6010 and Celeron 6305 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Boost clock speed1.35 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rateno data4 GT/s
L1 cacheno data160 KB
L2 cache1024 KB2.5 MB
L3 cacheno data4 MB
Chip lithography28 nm10 nm SuperFin
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)90 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on E1-6010 and Celeron 6305 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
SocketFT3bFCBGA1449
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E1-6010 and Celeron 6305. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVXIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
FMAFMA4-
AVX++
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

E1-6010 and Celeron 6305 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E1-6010 and Celeron 6305 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E1-6010 and Celeron 6305. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channels12

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R2 GraphicsIntel UHD Graphics for 11th Gen Intel Processors
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Video HDno data+
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data1.25 GHz
Execution Unitsno data48

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E1-6010 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data4
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by E1-6010 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

Max resolution over HDMI 1.4no data4096x2304@60Hz
Max resolution over eDPno data4096x2304@60Hz
Max resolution over DisplayPortno data7680x4320@60Hz

Graphics API support

APIs supported by E1-6010 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 1212.1
OpenGLno data4.6
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E1-6010 and Celeron 6305.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes8no 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.

E1-6010 0.34
Celeron 6305 1.31
+285%

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.

E1-6010 534
Celeron 6305 2080
+290%

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.

E1-6010 128
Celeron 6305 749
+485%

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.

E1-6010 219
Celeron 6305 1264
+477%

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.

E1-6010 1006
Celeron 6305 3465
+245%

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.

E1-6010 1784
Celeron 6305 6611
+271%

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.

E1-6010 95.8
Celeron 6305 39.12
+145%

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.

E1-6010 1
Celeron 6305 2
+227%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

E1-6010 49
Celeron 6305 161
+229%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made 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 (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

E1-6010 25
Celeron 6305 84
+236%

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.

E1-6010 0.33
Celeron 6305 0.99
+200%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

E1-6010 0.3
Celeron 6305 0.9
+179%

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.

E1-6010 516
Celeron 6305 1210
+134%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

E1-6010 4
Celeron 6305 11
+200%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

E1-6010 19
Celeron 6305 62
+230%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.34 1.31
Recency 29 April 2014 1 September 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 15 Watt

E1-6010 has 50% lower power consumption.

Celeron 6305, on the other hand, has a 285.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The Celeron 6305 is our recommended choice as it beats the E1-6010 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E1-6010 and Celeron 6305, 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 E1-6010
E1-6010
Intel Celeron 6305
Celeron 6305

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.


2.3 562 votes

Rate E1-6010 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 153 votes

Rate Celeron 6305 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E1-6010 or Celeron 6305, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.