i9-13900K vs E-350
Aggregate performance score
Core i9-13900K outperforms E-350 by a whopping 13637% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E-350 and Core i9-13900K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3147 | 88 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 62.93 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD E-Series | Intel Core i9 |
| Power efficiency | 1.42 | 28.06 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 27 September 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $589 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
E-350 and Core i9-13900K 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 16 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 30 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on E-350 and Core i9-13900K 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 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-350 and Core i9-13900K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
E-350 and Core i9-13900K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-350 and Core i9-13900K are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-350 and Core i9-13900K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4, DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 89.604 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | Intel UHD Graphics 770 |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.65 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 32 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of E-350 and Core i9-13900K integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by E-350 and Core i9-13900K integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by E-350 and Core i9-13900K integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E-350 and Core i9-13900K.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
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.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.27 | 37.09 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.32 | 6.16 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 27 September 2022 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 125 Watt |
E-350 has 594.4% lower power consumption.
i9-13900K, on the other hand, has a 13637% higher aggregate performance score, 1825% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 11 years, and 1100% more physical cores and 1500% more threads.
The Core i9-13900K is our recommended choice as it beats the E-350 in performance tests.
Be aware that E-350 is a notebook processor while Core i9-13900K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-350 and Core i9-13900K, 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.
