Last month AMD introduced new E-300 and E-450 processors for low power notebook and desktop computers. Like last year’s 1.6 GHz E-350 chip, the new processors combine graphics and CPU functions onto a single chip with a TDP of about 18 watts. The 1.65 GHz E-450 though, is a little faster than the 1.3 GHz E-350, while the E-300 is a little less powerful, but it’s also a cheaper option for lower priced computers.
So what exactly are these new chips good for? AMD has put together a short video showing the processors strutting their stuff by running through everyday computing tasks such as running Microsoft PowerPoint, Word, and Outlook.
The company also claims you’ll get better battery life from a computer with an E-series chip than from a system with a similar Intel processor — but this will clearly vary depending on which Intel chip you pick. For the purposes of its tests, AMD pitted the E-450 against an Intel B940, and the E-300 against an Intel B800.
It’s not surprising that you’d get better battery life out of AMD’s chips, since the company chose to compare them with 35W Intel Celeron processors — but it’s not clear that Intel really has anything comparable to AMD’s E-series processors at the moment. Intel Atom chips use much less power, but are far less capable, while most of the company’s higher end chips use 35W or more.
HP says its new Pavilion dm1 laptop with AMD’s latest chips will get up to 10 hours of run time. The dm1 is scheduled to ship later this week, which will make it one of the first laptops to feature AMD E-300 and E-450 processor options.
I have a asus K53u 2gb ram , 320 hard drive , running the E350 1.66 ghz , But it is so slow especialy when playing games on facebook , please can anyone help as im not very good with computers??
Thats impossible, people have played WoW on E series laptops without problem. Check your internet connection, online games like those on facebook & yahoo tend to require better internet speed & stability.
downgrade abodes flashplayer to 10.3 the latest version of flash now is a bit more than the cpu can handle. to downgrade the flash player search google for “abode flashplayer 10.3 installer” make sure to scan the file with an antivirus or antimalware/trojan software before u run it.
I wish computers would have total power consumption figures for idling, moderate surfing and heavy loads. It would really help my buying decisions, because I use MagicJack and need to run 24/7. I know netbooks are great, I have one and tested it with a Kill-a-watt tester. It runs at 9 watts total. I would really like to know the power consumption of a HP DM1z.
If I am capable of testing them for watt consumption, why can’t the manufactures show me this information before I buy?
Switch to magicJack PLUS, and you won’t need to keep your computer on.
I have an Asus Eee PC 1215b featuring the AMD C-50 and depending on what i’m doing I can average 5-6 hours of battery life. If I’m watching videos it usually goes down to 3 hours.
The power of these chips would be great if they actually can get 10 hours of battery life.
To clarify: The E-350 is 2 x 1.6Ghz, and the E-450 is 2 x 1.65Ghz (so it’s essentially the same speed on the CPU side); both are 18W TDP designs.
The E series from AMD fills a niche between the low-cost, low-power, low-performance Atoms/AMD C-series chips and the high-cost mainstream chips, such as Intel’s i7-2657M, which smokes the E-350 in both CPU and GPU performance at a 17W TDP.
However, the i7-2657M is not going to show up in a $450 computer (such as the Thinkpad x120e) any time soon. Intel does not seem to be really interested in the “low power, low cost, but better than an Atom” market, so AMD will make a killing there. I hope AMD can soon make chips that can compete with Intel’s highest end chips again.
Brad, was the Intel ULV SU7300 chip ahead of its time? Cause its the only core2duo chip that has a 10 TDP but with very good performance.
Like you said above, Intel has no comparable chip. Infact I noticed, Atom aside, Intel has reverted back to 18 TDP for all their ULV and UM chips.
How come this is so Brad? SHouldn’t they come up with a better and faster SU7300 chip?
The SU7300 was a stand alone CPU. The Sandy bridge ULV chips include grpahics in their TDP, so a 17W SandyBridge uses the same power or less than a 10W SU7300 + 4500MHD IGP(?10W)
nbn…the e350 is 1.6ghz and the e300 is 1.3ghz. the difference between the e450 and e350 is a higher gpu clock!
WHich is great, but from everything I’ve seen the graphics performance of the chips were CPU bound, not memory or graphics bound. So the 600 mhz bump in CPU clock is nice, but the 100mhz bump in GPU speed is fairly meaningless… We’ll have to see if the benchmarks bear that out, but that’s what I’m expecting.
E-450 only adds 50Mhz to the normal clock speed, but also adds AMD’s Turbo Core. The feature is similar to Intel’s Turbo Boost feature, which means there is a question of whether it can properly predict when it is needed and when it is not. While the only other problem is while it over clocks one core, it under clocks the other. So only really benefits single core operations and could potentially get in the way if you actually need dual core performance.
The GPU though, since it’s embedded, also benefits from the Turbo Core feature and gets over clocked as well and should provide a straight graphical boost, provided it isn’t bottlenecked by CPU performance.
Additionally, they increased max supported RAM speed. So can possibly have better memory bandwidth, which is something that the embedded GPU suffers a bit from as it doesn’t have dedicated memory and has to use shared memory from RAM.
Overall a bit of a mix bag, seems like it’ll be better on paper but just remains to be seen if it’ll be a straight up better choice than the E-350 when everything is finally factored and tested.
Comments are closed.