Celeron M 530 vs E-350

VS

Aggregate performance score

E-350
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.27
+42.1%
Celeron M 530
1 core / 1 thread, 30 Watt
0.19

E-350 outperforms Celeron M 530 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E-350 and Celeron M 530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31323234
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD E-SeriesCeleron M
Power efficiency1.420.60
Architecture codenameZacate (2011−2013)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date4 January 2011 (13 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)

Detailed specifications

E-350 and Celeron M 530 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speedno data1.73 GHz
Boost clock speed1.6 GHz1.73 GHz
Bus rateno data533 MHz
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache512K (per core)no data
L3 cache0 KB1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography40 nm65 nm
Die size75 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.95V-1.3V

Compatibility

Information on E-350 and Celeron M 530 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 configuration1no data
SocketFT1PBGA479,PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt30 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-350 and Celeron M 530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4Ano data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

E-350 and Celeron M 530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-350 and Celeron M 530 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-350 and Celeron M 530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6310no 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.

E-350 0.27
+42.1%
Celeron M 530 0.19

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.

E-350 421
+39.4%
Celeron M 530 302

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.

E-350 1049
Celeron M 530 1615
+54%

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.

E-350 1021
+38.2%
Celeron M 530 739

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 0.19
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 30 Watt

E-350 has a 42.1% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The E-350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 530 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E-350 and Celeron M 530, 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 E-350
E-350
Intel Celeron M 530
Celeron M 530

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.


2.8 386 votes

Rate E-350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 40 votes

Rate Celeron M 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E-350 or Celeron M 530, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.