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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD E 240

Reasons to consider the
AMD E 240

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 14.63W vs 52.81W 3.6x lower typical power consumption
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 90 °C vs 71.5 °C More than 25% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year vs 15.66 $/year 3.6x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year vs 56.94 $/year 3.6x lower annual commercial energy cost
More l3 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Front view of AMD A4 3400

Reasons to consider the
AMD A4 3400

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 2.7 GHz vs 1.5 GHz More than 80% higher clock speed
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,446 vs 508 More than 4.8x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Significantly newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 40 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 1,367 vs 522 More than 2.5x better geekbench 3 single core score
Higher GPU clock speed 600 MHz vs 500 MHz 20% higher GPU clock speed
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better PassMark score 1,595 vs 321 Around 5x better PassMark score
Newer Sep, 2011 vs Jan, 2011 Release date 8 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of E 240 vs A4 3400

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 240
513
A4 3400
2,511

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 240
522
A4 3400
1,367

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 240
45,800 MB/s
A4 3400
112,400 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 240
508
A4 3400
2,446

GeekBench

E 240
929
A4 3400
3,423

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

E 240
321
A4 3400
1,595

PassMark (Single Core)

E 240
350
A4 3400
903

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

E 240  vs
A4 3400 
Clock speed 1.5 GHz 2.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed None None
Cores Single core Dual core
Socket type
940
FM1
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
AMD64
AMD-V
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1066

details

E 240  vs
A4 3400 
Threads 1 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 0.5 MB 0.5 MB
L3 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 40 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Voltage range 1.18 - 1.35V 0.91 - 1.41V
Operating temperature Unknown - 90°C Unknown - 71.5°C

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Radeon™ HD 6310 Radeon™ HD 6410D
Latest DirectX 11.0 11.0
GPU clock speed 500 MHz 600 MHz

power consumption

TDP 18W 65W
Annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 1.81 pt/W 1.57 pt/W
Typical power consumption 14.63W 52.81W
AMD E 240
Report a correction
AMD A4 3400
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus