Pentium M 738 vs E-450
Aggregate performance score
E-450 outperforms Pentium M 738 by a whopping 269% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E-450 and Pentium M 738 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2910 | 3340 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | Pentium M |
| Power efficiency | 2.52 | 1.23 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 22 August 2011 (13 years ago) | no data |
Detailed specifications
E-450 and Pentium M 738 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 | 1.65 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 400 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on E-450 and Pentium M 738 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 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-450 and Pentium M 738. 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 |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-450 and Pentium M 738 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-450 and Pentium M 738. 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 6320 | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.48 | 0.13 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 10 Watt |
E-450 has a 269.2% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.
Pentium M 738, on the other hand, has 80% lower power consumption.
The E-450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Pentium M 738 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-450 and Pentium M 738, 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.
