CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 86 vs 350 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

6.2

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD Turion X2 Ultra 86 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Turion X2 Ultra 86  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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Turion X2 Ultra 86

Reasons to consider the
AMD Turion X2 Ultra 86

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 1,617.5 vs 24 Around 67.5x better 3DMark06 CPU score
Significantly higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 50% higher clock speed
Significantly more l2 cache 1.95 MB vs 1 MB 95% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 0.97 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 95% more l2 cache per core
Higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C vs 90 °C More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better PassMark (Single core) score 617 vs 420 More than 45% better PassMark (Single core) score
Lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 12 $/year Around 30% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD E 350

Reasons to consider the
AMD E 350

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
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Jun, 2008 Release date over 2 years later
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Turion X2 Ultra 86 vs E 350

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Turion X2 Ultra 86  vs
E 350 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual 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
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 35W 18W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 12 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 28.21 $/year
Performance per watt 1.74 pt/W 1.5 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 30.2W

details

Turion X2 Ultra 86  vs
E 350 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1.95 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.97 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 40 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 100°C Unknown - 90°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.4 GHz 3.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz 3.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.4 GHz 3.5 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ HD 6310
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
GPU clock speed N/A 492 MHz
AMD Turion X2 Ultra 86
Report a correction
AMD E 350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus