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 Intel Celeron 320

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 320

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 50% higher clock speed
Front view of AMD E 350

Reasons to consider the
AMD E 350

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 40 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly more l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.25 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Much lower typical power consumption 30.2W vs 68.25W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 90 °C vs 67.7 °C Around 35% higher Maximum operating temperature
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 28.21 $/year vs 73.58 $/year 2.6x lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 12 $/year vs 20.24 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost

Features Key features of the Celeron 320  vs E 350 

clock speed

Celeron 320
2.4 GHz
E 350
1.6 GHz

L2 cache

Celeron 320
0.25 MB
E 350
1 MB

TDP

E 350
18W

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron 320  vs
E 350 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Single core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No Yes

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ HD 6310
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
GPU clock speed N/A 492 MHz

details

Celeron 320  vs
E 350 
Threads 1 2
L2 cache 0.25 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 90 nm 40 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 18 8
Voltage range 1.25 - 1.4V 1.25 - 1.35V
Operating temperature Unknown - 67.7°C Unknown - 90°C

power consumption

TDP 84W 18W
Annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year 12 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year 28.21 $/year
Typical power consumption 68.25W 30.2W
Intel Celeron 320
Report a correction
AMD E 350
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus