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 867

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Celeron 867

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron 867

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 867

Report a correction
Significantly newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 40 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Lower typical power consumption 13.81W vs 30.2W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
Higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C vs 90 °C More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better performance per watt 2.92 pt/W vs 1.5 pt/W Around 95% better performance per watt
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 1,712.5 vs 1,096 More than 55% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year vs 12 $/year 2.9x lower annual home energy cost
Newer Jan, 2012 vs Jan, 2011 Release date a year later
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
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 51,600 MB/s vs 62.35 MB/s More than 827.5x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz vs 1.3 GHz Around 25% higher clock speed
Higher GPU clock speed 492 MHz vs 350 MHz More than 40% higher GPU clock speed
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.5 GHz vs 2.2 GHz Around 60% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.5 GHz vs 1.3 GHz Around 2.8x better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 867 vs E 350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron 867
1,712.5
E 350
1,096

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron 867
1,027.5
E 350
620

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron 867
62.35 MB/s
E 350
51,600 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron 867
1,669
E 350
1,032

GeekBench

Celeron 867
1,669
E 350
1,861

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Celeron 867
1,199
E 350
782

PassMark (Single Core)

E 350
420

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron 867  vs
E 350 
Clock speed 1.3 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

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 2.92 pt/W 1.5 pt/W
Typical power consumption 13.81W 30.2W

details

Celeron 867  vs
E 350 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 40 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 13 8
Operating temperature Unknown - 100°C Unknown - 90°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.2 GHz 3.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.3 GHz 3.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.2 GHz 3.5 GHz

integrated graphics

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

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3
Intel Celeron 867
Report a correction
AMD E 350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus