A4-3300 vs E2-2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-2000
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.31
A4-3300
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.59
+90.3%

A4-3300 outperforms E2-2000 by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-2000 and A4-3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31042813
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD E-Seriesno data
Power efficiency1.630.86
Architecture codenameZacate (2011−2013)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date6 January 2013 (11 years ago)7 September 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

E2-2000 and A4-3300 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
Base clock speedno data2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed1.75 GHz2.5 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography40 nm32 nm
Die size75 mm2228 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)100 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-2000 and A4-3300 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
SocketFT1 BGA 413-BallFM1
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-2000 and A4-3300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-Vno data
PowerNow+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-2000 and A4-3300 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-2000 and A4-3300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 7340Radeon HD 6410D

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-2000 and A4-3300.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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.

E2-2000 0.31
A4-3300 0.59
+90.3%

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.

E2-2000 496
A4-3300 942
+89.9%

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.

E2-2000 144
A4-3300 235
+63.2%

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.

E2-2000 270
A4-3300 423
+56.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 0.59
Recency 6 January 2013 7 September 2011
Chip lithography 40 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 65 Watt

E2-2000 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 261.1% lower power consumption.

A4-3300, on the other hand, has a 90.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.

The A4-3300 is our recommended choice as it beats the E2-2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that E2-2000 is a notebook processor while A4-3300 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-2000 and A4-3300, 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 E2-2000
E2-2000
AMD A4-3300
A4-3300

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.


2.7 58 votes

Rate E2-2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 125 votes

Rate A4-3300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-2000 or A4-3300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.