E1-1200 vs A8-6410

VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-6410
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.12
+367%
E1-1200
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.24

A8-6410 outperforms E1-1200 by a whopping 367% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-6410 and E1-1200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24103178
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD E-Series
Power efficiency7.071.26
Architecture codenameBeema (2014)Zacate (2011−2013)
Release date1 June 2014 (10 years ago)6 June 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A8-6410 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.4 GHz
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm40 nm
Die sizeno data75 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data100 °C
Number of transistors930 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A8-6410 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 configurationno data1
SocketFT3bFT1
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt18 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-6410 and E1-1200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VTMMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow++
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-6410 and E1-1200 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-6410 and E1-1200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3L-1866DDR3
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 GraphicsAMD Radeon HD 7310
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A8-6410 and E1-1200 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A8-6410 and E1-1200 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-6410 and E1-1200.

PCIe version2.0no data

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.

A8-6410 1.12
+367%
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.

A8-6410 1774
+367%
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.

A8-6410 223
+137%
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.

A8-6410 589
+261%
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.

A8-6410 1887
+107%
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.

A8-6410 5872
+249%
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.

A8-6410 2866
+228%
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.

A8-6410 24.3
+213%
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.

A8-6410 2
+285%
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.

A8-6410 0.6
+122%
E1-1200 0.27

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.12 0.24
Recency 1 June 2014 6 June 2012
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 18 Watt

A8-6410 has a 366.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.

The A8-6410 is our recommended choice as it beats the E1-1200 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-6410 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 A8-6410
A8-6410
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.


3.6 324 votes

Rate A8-6410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 293 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 A8-6410 or E1-1200, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.