AMD E2-2000 vs AMD C-60
Vergleichende Analyse von AMD E2-2000 und AMD C-60 Prozessoren für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Leistung, Speicher, Kompatibilität, Fortschrittliche Technologien, Virtualisierung. Benchmark-Prozessorleistungsanalyse: PassMark - Single thread mark, PassMark - CPU mark, Geekbench 4 - Single Core, Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps).
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD E2-2000
- CPU ist neuer: Startdatum 1 Jahr(e) 4 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 32% höhere Taktfrequenz: 1.75 GHz vs 1.33 GHz
- Etwa 52% bessere Leistung in PassMark - Single thread mark: 538 vs 354
- Etwa 71% bessere Leistung in PassMark - CPU mark: 496 vs 290
- Etwa 19% bessere Leistung in Geekbench 4 - Single Core: 129 vs 108
- Etwa 18% bessere Leistung in Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core: 233 vs 197
- Etwa 24% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 0.578 vs 0.467
- 3.2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3.575 vs 1.102
- Etwa 47% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.044 vs 0.03
- Etwa 68% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 3.017 vs 1.801
- Etwa 64% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 0.798 vs 0.487
- 32.4x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 324 vs 10
- 32.4x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 324 vs 10
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 1 January 2013 vs 22 August 2011 |
| Maximale Frequenz | 1.75 GHz vs 1.33 GHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 538 vs 354 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 496 vs 290 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 129 vs 108 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 233 vs 197 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.578 vs 0.467 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3.575 vs 1.102 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.044 vs 0.03 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 3.017 vs 1.801 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 0.798 vs 0.487 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 324 vs 10 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 324 vs 10 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD C-60
- 2x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 9 Watt vs 18 Watt
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 9 Watt vs 18 Watt |
Benchmarks vergleichen
CPU 1: AMD E2-2000
CPU 2: AMD C-60
| PassMark - Single thread mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - CPU mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD E2-2000 | AMD C-60 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 538 | 354 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 496 | 290 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 129 | 108 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 233 | 197 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.578 | 0.467 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3.575 | 1.102 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.044 | 0.03 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 3.017 | 1.801 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 0.798 | 0.487 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 324 | 10 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 324 | 10 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 564 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 564 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| AMD E2-2000 | AMD C-60 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur Codename | Zacate | Ontario |
| Startdatum | 1 January 2013 | 22 August 2011 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 3276 | 3286 |
| Serie | AMD E-Series | AMD C-Series |
| Vertikales Segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Leistung |
||
| 64-Bit-Unterstützung | ||
| Matrizengröße | 75 mm | 75 mm |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 1024 KB |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Maximale Gehäusetemperatur (TCase) | 100 °C | |
| Maximale Frequenz | 1.75 GHz | 1.33 GHz |
| Anzahl der Adern | 2 | 2 |
| Anzahl der Gewinde | 2 | 2 |
Speicher |
||
| Unterstützte Speichertypen | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Kompatibilität |
||
| Maximale Anzahl von CPUs in einer Konfiguration | 1 | 1 |
| Unterstützte Sockel | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 18 Watt | 9 Watt |
Fortschrittliche Technologien |
||
| PowerNow | ||
Virtualisierung |
||
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
