CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 68 vs 300 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

5.3

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD Turion 64 X2 68 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Turion 64 X2 68  based on its performance and single-core performance.

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

AMD Turion 64 X2 68

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD Turion 64 X2 68

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Turion 64 X2 68

Reasons to consider the
AMD Turion 64 X2 68

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 1.3 GHz Around 85% higher clock speed
Better PassMark (Single core) score 687 vs 342 More than 2x better PassMark (Single core) score
Higher Maximum operating temperature 95 °C vs 90 °C More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
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
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Lower typical power consumption 14.63W vs 28.44W Around 50% lower typical power consumption
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

Benchmarks Real world tests of Turion 64 X2 68 vs E 300

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

E 300
1,233

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Turion 64 X2 68  vs
E 300 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 1.3 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support No Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
AMD64
AMD-V
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3

details

Turion 64 X2 68  vs
E 300 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 40 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 95°C Unknown - 90°C

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ HD 6310
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
GPU clock speed N/A 488 MHz

power consumption

TDP 35W 18W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 4.34 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 15.77 $/year
Performance per watt 1.77 pt/W 2.34 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 14.63W
AMD Turion 64 X2 68
Report a correction
AMD E 300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus