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 A6 3400M

AMD A6 3400M

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD E 300

Reasons to consider the
AMD E 300

Report a correction
Lower typical power consumption 14.63W vs 28.44W Around 50% lower typical power consumption
Higher GPU clock speed 488 MHz vs 400 MHz More than 20% higher GPU clock speed
Lower annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year vs 8.43 $/year Around 50% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year vs 30.66 $/year Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Aug, 2011 vs Jun, 2011 Release date 2 months later
Front view of AMD A6 3400M

Reasons to consider the
AMD A6 3400M

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 32.3 vs 20.3 Around 60% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 1 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 68,700 MB/s vs 41,900 MB/s Around 65% better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Much higher turbo clock speed 1.4 GHz vs None Compared to all cpus, 1.4 GHz turbo clock speed is just OK
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,858 vs 827 Around 3.5x 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
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C vs 90 °C More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Better PassMark score 1,902 vs 614 More than 3x better PassMark score
Slightly better performance per watt 2.93 pt/W vs 2.34 pt/W More than 25% better performance per watt

Benchmarks Real world tests of E 300 vs A6 3400M

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated Data courtesy FutureMark

E 300
956
A6 3400M
1,794

Sky Diver Data courtesy FutureMark

E 300
571
A6 3400M
1,473

Cloud Gate Data courtesy FutureMark

E 300
1,068
A6 3400M
2,906

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 300
896
A6 3400M
2,872

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 300
512
A6 3400M
895

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 300
41,900 MB/s
A6 3400M
68,700 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

E 300
614
A6 3400M
1,902

PassMark (Single Core)

E 300
342
A6 3400M
540

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

E 300  vs
A6 3400M 
Clock speed 1.3 GHz 1.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed None 1.4 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
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
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066

details

E 300  vs
A6 3400M 
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 1 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 0.5 MB 1 MB
L3 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 40 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 5 12
Operating temperature Unknown - 90°C Unknown - 100°C

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Radeon™ HD 6310 Radeon™ HD 6520G
Latest DirectX 11.0 11.0
GPU clock speed 488 MHz 400 MHz

power consumption

TDP 18W 35W
Annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 2.34 pt/W 2.93 pt/W
Typical power consumption 14.63W 28.44W
AMD E 300
Report a correction
AMD A6 3400M
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus