Celeron M 410 vs E-240
Primary details
Comparing E-240 and Celeron M 410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Yonah (2005−2006) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
E-240 and Celeron M 410 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.46 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 1.46 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 KB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.0V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on E-240 and Celeron M 410 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 | no data |
| Socket | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 27 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-240 and Celeron M 410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
E-240 and Celeron M 410 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 E-240 and Celeron M 410 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-240 and Celeron M 410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 Single-channel | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 27 Watt |
E-240 has a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between E-240 and Celeron M 410. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-240 and Celeron M 410, 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.
