E1-7010 vs Celeron U3600

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron U3600
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.36
E1-7010
2015
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.37
+2.8%

E1-7010 outperforms Celeron U3600 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron U3600 and E1-7010 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30323021
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD E-Series
Power efficiency1.893.50
Architecture codenameWestmere (2010−2011)Carrizo-L (2015)
Release date11 January 2011 (13 years ago)7 May 2015 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron U3600 and E1-7010 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 speed1.2 GHzno data
Boost clock speed0.1 GHz1.5 GHz
Bus typeDMI 1.0no data
Bus rate1 × 2.5 GT/sno data
Multiplier9no data
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache512 KB1024 KB
L3 cache2 MBno data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size81 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C90 °C
Number of transistors382 Million930 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron U3600 and E1-7010 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketBGA1288FP4
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron U3600 and E1-7010. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT
AES-NI-+
FMA+FMA4
AVX-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron U3600 and E1-7010 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron U3600 and E1-7010 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron U3600 and E1-7010. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-800DDR3L-1333
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels21
Maximum memory bandwidth12.799 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel ProcessorsAMD Radeon R2 Graphics
Clear Video+no data
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+
Graphics max frequency500 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron U3600 and E1-7010 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron U3600 and E1-7010 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron U3600 and E1-7010.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes16no 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.

Celeron U3600 0.36
E1-7010 0.37
+2.8%

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.

Celeron U3600 579
E1-7010 593
+2.4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.36 0.37
Recency 11 January 2011 7 May 2015
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 10 Watt

E1-7010 has a 2.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron U3600 and E1-7010.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron U3600 and E1-7010, 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.


Intel Celeron U3600
Celeron U3600
AMD E1-7010
E1-7010

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 1 vote

Rate Celeron U3600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 228 votes

Rate E1-7010 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron U3600 or E1-7010, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.