CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 1007U vs 350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU), PassMark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Value

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value

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
Significantly newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 40 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher Maximum operating temperature 105 °C vs 90 °C More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better PassMark (Single core) score 818 vs 429 More than 90% better PassMark (Single core) score
Lower typical power consumption 13.81W vs 30.2W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
Newer Jan, 2013 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 2 years later
Better performance per watt 12.73 pt/W vs 3.87 pt/W More than 3.2x better performance per watt
Slightly better 3DMark06 CPU score 1,610 vs 1,021 Around 60% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Lower annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year vs 12 $/year 2.9x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 14.89 $/year vs 28.21 $/year More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD E 350

Reasons to consider the
AMD E 350

Report a correction
Higher GPU clock speed 492 MHz vs 350 MHz More than 40% higher GPU clock speed

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 1007U vs E 350

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 350
1,032

GeekBench

E 350
1,861

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

E 350
1,021

PassMark Data courtesy PassMark

E 350
761

PassMark (Single Core) Data courtesy PassMark

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

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
AMD64
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

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

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 nm 40 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 15 8
Operating temperature Unknown - 105°C Unknown - 90°C

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Radeon™ HD 6310
GPU clock speed 350 MHz 492 MHz

power consumption

TDP 17W 18W
Annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year 12 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 14.89 $/year 28.21 $/year
Performance per watt 12.73 pt/W 3.87 pt/W
Typical power consumption 13.81W 30.2W
Intel Celeron 1007U
Report a correction
AMD E 350
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus