AMD E2-2000 versus AMD C-60
Analyse comparative des processeurs AMD E2-2000 et AMD C-60 pour tous les caractéristiques dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Performance, Mémoire, Compatibilité, Technologies élevé, Virtualization. Analyse de référence de la performance des processeurs: 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD E2-2000
- CPU est plus nouveau: date de sortie 1 ans 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 32% vitesse de fonctionnement plus vite: 1.75 GHz versus 1.33 GHz
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en PassMark - Single thread mark: 538 versus 354
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en PassMark - CPU mark: 496 versus 290
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en Geekbench 4 - Single Core: 129 versus 108
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core: 233 versus 197
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 0.578 versus 0.467
- 3.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3.575 versus 1.102
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.044 versus 0.03
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 3.017 versus 1.801
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 0.798 versus 0.487
- 32.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 324 versus 10
- 32.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 324 versus 10
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 January 2013 versus 22 August 2011 |
| Fréquence maximale | 1.75 GHz versus 1.33 GHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 538 versus 354 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 496 versus 290 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 129 versus 108 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 233 versus 197 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.578 versus 0.467 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3.575 versus 1.102 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.044 versus 0.03 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 3.017 versus 1.801 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 0.798 versus 0.487 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 324 versus 10 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 324 versus 10 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD C-60
- 2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 9 Watt versus 18 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 9 Watt versus 18 Watt |
Comparer les références
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) |
|
|
| Nom | 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 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD E2-2000 | AMD C-60 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Nom de code de l’architecture | Zacate | Ontario |
| Date de sortie | 1 January 2013 | 22 August 2011 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 3264 | 3276 |
| Série | AMD E-Series | AMD C-Series |
| Segment vertical | Laptop | Laptop |
Performance |
||
| Soutien de 64-bit | ||
| Taille de dé | 75 mm | 75 mm |
| Cache L1 | 128 KB | 128 KB |
| Cache L2 | 1024 KB | 1024 KB |
| Processus de fabrication | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Température maximale de la caisse (TCase) | 100 °C | |
| Fréquence maximale | 1.75 GHz | 1.33 GHz |
| Nombre de noyaux | 2 | 2 |
| Nombre de fils | 2 | 2 |
Mémoire |
||
| Genres de mémoire soutenus | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Compatibilité |
||
| Nombre de CPUs maximale dans une configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Prise courants soutenu | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 18 Watt | 9 Watt |
Technologies élevé |
||
| PowerNow | ||
Virtualization |
||
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un CPU
Comparer les processeurs
Comparer AMD E2-2000 avec des autres
AMDE2-2000 vs
AMDAthlon 64 L110
AMDE2-2000 vs
IntelCore 2 Duo SU7300
AMDE2-2000 vs
IntelAtom E660
AMDE2-2000 vs
AMDC-60
AMDE2-2000 vs
AMDA4-1250
AMDE2-2000 vs
IntelAtom C2338
