E-240 vs A8-6500
Aggregate performance score
A8-6500 outperforms E-240 by a whopping 1383% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-6500 and E-240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2027 | 3354 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD E-Series |
| Power efficiency | 2.58 | 0.63 |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A8-6500 and E-240 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A8-6500 and E-240 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FM2 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-6500 and E-240. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | FMA4 | - |
| AVX | AVX | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-6500 and E-240 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-6500 and E-240. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR3 Single-channel |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 8570D | AMD Radeon HD 6310 |
| จำนวนพาธไลน์ | 256 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A8-6500 and E-240 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A8-6500 and E-240 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-6500 and E-240.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.78 | 0.12 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.13 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 1 June 2013 | 4 January 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 18 Watt |
A8-6500 has a 1383.3% higher aggregate performance score, 253.1% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.
E-240, on the other hand, has 261.1% lower power consumption.
The A8-6500 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-240 in performance tests.
Note that A8-6500 is a desktop processor while E-240 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-6500 and E-240, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
