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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD E 300

Reasons to consider the
AMD E 300

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 40 nm vs 65 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
More l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.5 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Newer Aug, 2011 vs Jan, 2009 Release date over 2 years later
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Front view of AMD Athlon Neo 40

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon Neo 40

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz vs 1.3 GHz Around 25% higher clock speed
Higher Maximum operating temperature 95 °C vs 90 °C More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature

Features Key features of the E 300  vs Athlon Neo 40 

clock speed

E 300
1.3 GHz
Athlon Neo 40
1.6 GHz

L2 cache

E 300
1 MB
Athlon Neo 40
0.5 MB


Specifications Full list of technical specs


E 300  vs
Athlon Neo 40 
Clock speed 1.3 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Is unlocked No No


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes


E 300  vs
Athlon Neo 40 
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 1 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 40 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 90°C Unknown - 95°C

integrated graphics

Label Radeon™ HD 6310 N/A
Latest DirectX 11.0 N/A
GPU clock speed 488 MHz N/A

power consumption

TDP 18W 15W
Annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year 3.61 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year 13.14 $/year
Typical power consumption 14.63W 12.19W
AMD E 300
Report a correction
AMD Athlon Neo 40
Report a correction


comments powered by Disqus