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 A8 6410

AMD A8 6410

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD E 350

Reasons to consider the
AMD E 350

Report a correction
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 90 °C vs 71.3 °C More than 25% higher Maximum operating temperature
Front view of AMD A8 6410

Reasons to consider the
AMD A8 6410

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 1,120,000 MB/s vs 51,600 MB/s Around 21.8x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Much higher turbo clock speed 2.4 GHz vs None Compared to all cpus, 2.4 GHz turbo clock speed is just OK
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 28.1 vs 24 More than 15% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 3,344 vs 1,032 Around 3.2x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better performance per watt 22.75 pt/W vs 1.5 pt/W Around 15.2x better performance per watt
Significantly newer manufacturing process 28 nm vs 40 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 2 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 25% higher clock speed
Much higher GPU clock speed 800 MHz vs 492 MHz Around 65% higher GPU clock speed
Much better CompuBench 1.5 T-Rex score 0.45 fps vs 0.1 fps Around 4.5x better CompuBench 1.5 T-Rex score
Significantly better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 3,534 vs 1,096 Around 3.2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Lower typical power consumption 12.19W vs 30.2W 2.5x lower typical power consumption
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Newer Jul, 2014 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 3 years later
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 3.61 $/year vs 12 $/year 3.3x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 13.14 $/year vs 28.21 $/year 2.1x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of E 350 vs A8 6410

CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench

E 350
7.51 mHash/s
A8 6410
24.62 mHash/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench

E 350
50.77 fps
A8 6410
112.98 fps

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

E 350
0.1 fps
A8 6410
0.45 fps

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 350
1,096
A8 6410
3,534

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 350
620
A8 6410
1,228

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 350
51,600 MB/s
A8 6410
1,120,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

E 350
782
A8 6410
2,536

PassMark (Single Core)

E 350
420
A8 6410
884

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

E 350  vs
A8 6410 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 2 GHz
Turbo clock speed None 2.4 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
F16C
MMX
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1066
DDR3L-1866

details

E 350  vs
A8 6410 
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 1 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 40 nm 28 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Voltage range 1.25 - 1.35V 0.5 - 1.4V
Operating temperature Unknown - 90°C Unknown - 71.3°C

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Radeon™ HD 6310 Radeon R5 series
GPU clock speed 492 MHz 800 MHz

power consumption

TDP 18W 15W
Annual home energy cost 12 $/year 3.61 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 28.21 $/year 13.14 $/year
Performance per watt 1.5 pt/W 22.75 pt/W
Typical power consumption 30.2W 12.19W
AMD E 350
Report a correction
AMD A8 6410
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus