Winner
AMD Turion II M520
CPUBoss recommends the AMD Turion II M520 based on its performance and single-core performance.
See full details AMD Turion II M520 vs E 450 |
Released September, 2009
AMD Turion II M520
- 2.3 GHz
- Dual core
5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD Turion II M520
 | Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 1,839 | | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 91,800 MB/s |
| | Higher clock speed 2.3 GHz |
VS
Released August, 2011
AMD E 450
- 1.65 GHz
- Dual core
7.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the E 450
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Newer manufacturing process 40 nm |
| | Lower typical power consumption 14.63W | | Newer Aug, 2011 |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of M520 vs 450 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 | |
| 7.4 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark06 CPU score | 1,839 | vs | 18.4 | Around 100x better 3DMark06 CPU score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 91,800 MB/s | vs | 53,200 MB/s | Around 75% better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
| Higher clock speed | 2.3 GHz | vs | 1.65 GHz | Around 40% higher clock speed | |||
| |||||||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Newer manufacturing process | 40 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 14.63W | vs | 28.44W | Around 50% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Newer | Aug, 2011 | vs | Sep, 2009 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| 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 | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Turion II M520 vs E 450
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
3D Mark 06 (CPU)
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Turion II M520 | vs | E 450 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 1.65 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| S1 | |||
| Super 7 | |||
| 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 | |
bus | |||
| Clock speed | 400 MHz | 100 MHz | |
details | Turion II M520 | vs | E 450 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 40 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Radeon™ HD 6320 | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | 11.0 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 508 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 600 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 | 2.51 pt/W | 2.98 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 28.44W | 14.63W | |
 AMD Turion II M520  Report a correction |  AMD E 450 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $225 | ||
| 450 vs 3217U | ||
| | VS |  |
| 450 vs 350 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $99 | ||
| 450 vs 2450M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 450 vs 1800 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $179 | ||
| 450 vs E8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | ||
| 450 vs 847 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | ||
| M520 vs 3120M | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $125 | $50 | |
| 3220 vs 5300 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
