CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 240e vs 5000 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

7.9

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD A4 5000 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD A4 5000  based on its power consumption.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS
Front view of AMD A4 5000

AMD A4 5000

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Athlon II X2 240e

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon II X2 240e

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 2.8 GHz vs 1.55 GHz More than 80% higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,437 vs 842 More than 70% better geekbench 3 single core score
Front view of AMD A4 5000

Reasons to consider the
AMD A4 5000

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 10.97W vs 138.13W 12.6x lower typical power consumption
Much newer manufacturing process 28 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better performance per watt 13.97 pt/W vs 0.74 pt/W Around 19x better performance per watt
Much lower annual home energy cost 3.25 $/year vs 54.26 $/year 16.7x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 90 °C vs 72 °C 25% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 11.83 $/year vs 129.91 $/year 11x lower annual commercial energy cost
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Newer Feb, 2014 vs Oct, 2009 Release date over 4 years later
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads

Benchmarks Real world tests of Athlon II X2 240e vs A4 5000

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Athlon II X2 240e
112,000 MB/s
A4 5000
752,800 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Athlon II X2 240e  vs
A4 5000 
Clock speed 2.8 GHz 1.55 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Socket type
AM3
BGA 769
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
F16C
MMX
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
AMD-V
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

details

Athlon II X2 240e  vs
A4 5000 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 2 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 1 MB None
Manufacture process 45 nm 28 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 90°C

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon HD 8330

power consumption

TDP 45W 13.5W
Annual home energy cost 54.26 $/year 3.25 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 129.91 $/year 11.83 $/year
Performance per watt 0.74 pt/W 13.97 pt/W
Typical power consumption 138.13W 10.97W
AMD Athlon II X2 240e
Report a correction
AMD A4 5000
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus