CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 1007U vs 350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 2 more

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Features

How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product?

Features and specifications that differ between products

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Features

Winner
Intel Celeron 1007U 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron 1007U  based on its .

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

Intel Celeron 1007U

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Celeron 1007U

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron 1007U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 1007U

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 40 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly lower typical power consumption 13.81W vs 30.2W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
Significantly higher Maximum Operating Temperature 105 °C vs 90 °C More than 15% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Marginally newer Jan, 2013 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 2 years later
Better performance per watt 13.49 pt/W vs 4.13 pt/W More than 3.2x better performance per watt
Better 3DMark06 CPU score 1,610 vs 1,021 Around 60% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Much lower annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year vs 12 $/year 2.9x lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD E 350

Reasons to consider the
AMD E 350

Report a correction
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
Significantly more l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 1007U vs E 350

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

E 350
1,021

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron 1007U  vs
E 350 
Clock speed 1.5 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 17W 18W
Annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year 12 $/year
Performance per watt 13.49 pt/W 4.13 pt/W
Typical power consumption 13.81W 30.2W

details

Celeron 1007U  vs
E 350 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 0.5 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 40 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 105°C Unknown - 90°C

gpu

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Radeon™ HD 6310
Intel Celeron 1007U
Report a correction
AMD E 350
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus