E1-1200 vs A4-5300

VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-5300
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.86
+258%
E1-1200
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.24

A4-5300 outperforms E1-1200 by a whopping 258% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-5300 and E1-1200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25583163
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD A-Series (Desktop)AMD E-Series
Power efficiency1.251.26
Architecture codenameTrinity (2012−2013)Zacate (2011−2013)
Release date2 October 2012 (12 years ago)6 June 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A4-5300 and E1-1200 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed3.4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz1.4 GHz
L1 cache128K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm40 nm
Die size246 mm275 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)70 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A4-5300 and E1-1200 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFM2FT1
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt18 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-5300 and E1-1200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, AES, AVX, XOP, FMA3, FMA4MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
PowerNow-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-5300 and E1-1200 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-5300 and E1-1200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 7480D (724 MHz)AMD Radeon HD 7310

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A4-5300 0.86
+258%
E1-1200 0.24

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

A4-5300 1360
+258%
E1-1200 380

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

A4-5300 369
+293%
E1-1200 94

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

A4-5300 504
+209%
E1-1200 163

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

A4-5300 2734
+200%
E1-1200 912

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

A4-5300 4345
+158%
E1-1200 1682

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

A4-5300 2284
+161%
E1-1200 874

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

A4-5300 35.5
+114%
E1-1200 76

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

A4-5300 1
+174%
E1-1200 1

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

A4-5300 0.91
+237%
E1-1200 0.27

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

A4-5300 1347
+223%
E1-1200 418

Geekbench 2

A4-5300 4268
+196%
E1-1200 1440

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.86 0.24
Integrated graphics card 0.72 0.33
Recency 2 October 2012 6 June 2012
Chip lithography 32 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 18 Watt

A4-5300 has a 258.3% higher aggregate performance score, 118.2% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.

E1-1200, on the other hand, has 261.1% lower power consumption.

The A4-5300 is our recommended choice as it beats the E1-1200 in performance tests.

Note that A4-5300 is a desktop processor while E1-1200 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-5300 and E1-1200, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A4-5300
A4-5300
AMD E1-1200
E1-1200

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 223 votes

Rate A4-5300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 274 votes

Rate E1-1200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-5300 or E1-1200, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.