Athlon 64 4000+ vs E-300
Aggregate performance score
Primary details
Comparing E-300 and Athlon 64 4000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3199 | 3197 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD E-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.10 | 0.22 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | San Diego (2001−2005) |
| Release date | 22 August 2011 (13 years ago) | January 2001 (23 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $160 |
Detailed specifications
E-300 and Athlon 64 4000+ 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 230 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 233 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on E-300 and Athlon 64 4000+ 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 | FT1 | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-300 and Athlon 64 4000+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVM | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-300 and Athlon 64 4000+ are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-300 and Athlon 64 4000+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 89 Watt |
E-300 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 225% more advanced lithography process, and 394.4% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between E-300 and Athlon 64 4000+.
Be aware that E-300 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 4000+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-300 and Athlon 64 4000+, 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.
