AMD E-450 benchmarks

This week AMD introduced a number of new low power Fusion processors including the AMD E-450 which is a little faster than the E-350 chip that’s been shipping since last year. But how does it stack up against other low power processors?

The folks at Blogee have published a few benchmark results pitting the 1.65 GHz AMD E-450 dual core against the 1.66 GHz Intel Atom N570 dual core processor and the upcoming 1.86 GHz Intel Atom N2800 dual core Cedar Trail chip.

AMD’s new chip comes out on top in overall performance and graphics tests — but the difference is far great in the graphics benchmarks. The PCMark2005 performance test shows the E-450 in the lead with 3310 points to the N2800’s 2250 points and N570’s 2020 points.

The new processor trounced the competition in the 3DMark06 test, with a score of 2876 against the N2800’s 440 points and the N570’s 156 points.

Interestingly, it looks like Intel’s Cedar Trail processors will offer big graphics improvements over earlier chips and overall performance that’s a little better. But it’s not surprising that AMD’s processor comes out ahead. While it’s a low-power chip compared with conventional laptop chips, it uses 18W of power while Intel’s processors use as little as 6.5W.

Despite the higher power consumption, AMD says laptops with E-450 chips should be able to get around 10 hours of battery life.

While Blogee doesn’t have benchmark results for AMD’s older E-350 chip, I’ve run the 3DMark06 test on a few different netbooks with that processor and results typically hover around the 2220 mark. So it looks like we should expect a bit of a graphics boost with the new AMD E-450 chip.


Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign


Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

Subscribe to Liliputing via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,502 other subscribers

28 replies on “How does AMD’s new E-450 chip stack up?”

  1. incredible how can you compare CPUs that have no videocard included (i count here those having intel videocards included that scores zero) with this AMD cpu that has a powerful videocard included on the chip…

  2. that’s is very true stupid inaccurate benchmarks they say stuff like ow left 4 dead on lowest achieves 10.4 fps 0-0 u get liek above 60fps on lowest every thing 0-0

    1. No, Benchmarks can vary depending on whether the drivers are good/finalizes, whether the game needs to be patch for the GPU you’re using, and system optimization and settings.

      Like the DM1 usually comes with enough bloatware running to prevent idling below 50% CPU usage most of the time.

      While AMD has released improved drivers over time. Far Cry 2, Left 4 Dead 2, and Stormrise, each got GPU configuration specific optimizations.

      Also, most reviewers don’t go out of their way to make sure everything works. They just test as it comes to them as that’s usually the experience for most users.

      While things like Battlefield Bad Company 2 can vary depending on what type of scene is being compared. Low activity/detail scenes will render faster than high activity/detail scenes. So you have to figure out what the average will be and not just your best or worst.

      Mind also that you are commenting on benchmarks done about a year ago and as noted things have changes like there are better drivers available now, you may have more RAM installed than they tested with, etc.

  3. I have gotten friends and family laptops (or oversized netbooks if you will) based on the E-350 and E450 and the specs belie their real world performance.
    Games at modest settings, HD video without ramping up CPU usage a bit, web pages render quickly and overall the experience does not feel like it’s being powered by a weak chip.  Smooth is smooth, and the benchmarks are interesting, but it’s all about usage.  I’d want even an Intel B960 before any mobile AMD chip if I were encoding many videos.  For most use though, this Fusion platform is fantastic for what is it.  From the e-350 up to the Llano so far.

  4. I’ve got a HP DM1 with a E-450 processor and it wipes the floor with my friends Acer Ferrari One! It came with 4GB RAM and 320HD, a very decent screen and cost £349. His Acer cost him £150 more just 8 months earlier.

    notebookcheck’s benchmarks for the graphics are TOTALLY off. Not only can I play MW3, I get over 30fps. They claim it won’t even run. They also have Battlefield Bad Company 2 down as 7fps, it’s actually nearer 25fps. Both figures according to fraps.

  5. Table : AMD E-450 Vs Core i3-2330M Feature Differences
    Feature AMD E-450 Core i3-2330M Core Frequency1.65 GHz2.20 GHz No. Of Cores22 (4 Hyperthreads) Cache Organization2 x 512 KB3 MB L3 Smart CacheTurbo Frequency No TurboNo Turbo TDP Rating18 Watts35 Watts 64 Bit SupportYY Lithography40 nm32 nm Integrated Memory ControllerDDR3-1333DDR3-1333 Integrated GraphicsYes, HD 6320, base clock 508 MHz, Turbo 600 MhzYes, Base 650 MHz, Turbo 1.10 GHz

  6. Sir, my laptop running on E450 doesn’t seem to run to 1.6Ghz or even to 1Ghz for each core. I checked using Brazostweaker and it shows that each of the core runs only at 800Mhz each.. The test was done with the battery charged above 92% and its AC power plugged. how can i make it to run to about 1.6Ghz for each core?

    1. Hellon the machine you have has many different power saving features. One of them consists in reducing the frequencies on each core, which reduces power draw, making your battery lasting longer.

      1.6Ghz would be seen when a very demanding task is being performed and the processor has to unleash 100% of its power. Try an program called Prime95. Is simulates a heavy workload that pushes the processor to its limits. You will then see max frequency with your diagnosis tool. Temperatures will rise too.

    1. Let’s just say it’s a bit faster than a typical netbook, but that’s a long way from the performance of a modern Core i-series laptop. 

      Though the GPU is around what you’d get with a entry level gaming graphic card and that’s better than the basic performance given by most laptops that don’t have discrete graphics.

      So nice for a compromise between getting a typical netbook and a regular laptop.

  7. I bought MSI CR430 with has APU E-450 with 6-cell battery, 14″ led hd, 2.5 HDD.
    Before, I bought samsung N150 powered by intel atom N450 with 6-cell battery, 10.1″lcd, 1.5 HDD…
    at all…
    N450= 5.6 TDP ,,,, E-450= 18 TDP
    -both netbooks on idle , stay on battery around 7-8 Hrs..
    -on office/net: N450 takes 4:30 to 5 Hrs or better and E-450 takes 4:20 to near 5 Hrs..
    -on MMO games and 480p videos: both around 2:45 to 3:15…
    -the performance of N450 is horrible comparing with E-450 although the battery consumption practically remain same with intel win…
    (( Intel only cares about how to reduce only their processor’s power but don’t care about how to reduce the power from whole system as AMD thought ))..

  8. Picked up an Acer Aspire with the E-450 chip from Staples for $299.  Laptop runs very cool, first impression is that battery life is pretty good, performance feels better than the 4 year old Core 2 Duo laptop its replacing.

    I love the way PC prices continue to tumble with each generation while the feature set improves (for example, the LED displays are much nicer than the older non-LED LCDs).

  9. Noone is going to read this, hgowever, when they give you the tdp of a zacate chip, that prett much includes the WHOLE CHIPSET, cpu, graphics, and all subsystems of the “apu.” 18W is for the whole system minus the screen and wifi etc.

    1. I read this!  And it helped make the difference, thx for posting.  I don’t really grok all the technicals, but I’m going to go with the E450 because of the lower overall power draw.

  10. I am not sure if it is interesting to see that AMD is making good processors since it is maybe ten times more difficult to find a laptop which utilize these latest processors.

    It has been two weeks since the launch of this processor, yet it is almost nowhere to be found…

    AMD must get manufacturers to make more models with AMD processors if they want to survive.

  11. “While it’s a low-power chip compared with conventional laptop chips, it
    uses 18W of power while Intel’s processors use as little as 6.5W.”

    Don’t forget that AMD’s TPD rating differs from Intel’s. It indicates maximum (worst case) power draw while Intel indicates “normal use” power draw. Considerable difference. Look for benchmarks, they usually include a “power consumption” chapter. If you want, calculate performance/power ratio to get an even more accurate idea.

  12. Hmm. “Up to 10 hours of battery life” lacks context 🙂 With an infinitely large battery, no screen, and in standby mode? Or in a standard-ish-issue 10″ / 3lb netbook? That is, I’d like them to be a little more specific. (Hopeless, I realize: The Battery Life Figure Is a Lie.)


    1. From personal experience, around 8hrs battery life with general internet/light program use. Games & HD video more like 3 1/2hrs, still not bad for a $350 laptop

  13. am talking generally about brazos & llano

    Other issues are DX11, open cl, native usb3 ports (a separate , power consuming chip on  intel).

    The 2 graphics test showed amd to be ~50% & 500% better vs a small increment in a comparable intel cpu speed generally. I kow which i would have.

    many, and increasingly, apps involve graphics, even browsers are open cl accelerated now. slightly slower computation vs grinding to a halt in graphics is a no brainer.

    benchmarks dont tell all. I hear people who have used both say the amd is far more usable.

    AMD has intel where they want them, dancing to AMDs tune for once & perhaps for all. If the mass market wises up to graphics being the main game on IGP systems (which is 90%~ of the market), intel cant compete for the foreseeable future. If intel get even close, AMD can easily up the ante.

    I suspect AMD would, had they had the leisure, prefer an even less cpu oriented llano w/ 2 cores & lower power, but opted for a proven 4 core design.

    Others may wish to elaborate on the following vague claim, but some reviews & their forums seemed to indicate intel was cheating on graphics conversions. The speed was good but the result was awful.

    If u r not a gamer, there is something very elegant about a single board that does it all. Just one set of drivers etc.

    I think brazos will go from 40nm to 28nm, pretty soon after they do the same w/ their discrete gpuS. That should be a kickass mobile chip.

    1. Indeed to all that. In fact they have already stepped up the ante, with the A series APUs. 3800 series is quad core with turbocore and dual graphics capability. Enough to run new games at laptop resolutions with medium-high graphics options. And they have another series on the way. Time for the rise of AMD

  14. Lets look at the specs here:
    E-350 – DDR3-1066  vs.  E-450 – DDR3-1333  => 25% increase in memory bandwith
    E-350 – 500 Mhz GPU vs. E-450 – 508/600 Mhz GPU => up to 20% increase in GPU clock

    given otherwise identical specs the 2 most important things for 3D graphics performance were pushed significantly enough on the 450 to have real world noticable benefits, in addition to that, the 25% increase in memory bandwith also help productivity apps that profit from memory throughput like compression or audio/video editing.

    1. The graphical performance is no surprise, no one expected Cedar Trail to close that gap.  At best it was only to lessen the issue by making HD video a non-issue and providing at least double the previous GMA 3150 performance.

      The only problem with this comparison though is its basically comparing two Mobile Intel offerings with a higher end nettop range offering. 

      In addition to the TDP difference, Zacate chips aren’t going in anything smaller than 11.6″ and should be compared to the equivalent Intel D-Series 1.8GHz D525 and the upcoming Cedar Trail 2.103GHz D2700.

      While the Intel N-Series is what directly competes against AMD’s Ontario offerings and thus they should have compared them to the new C-60 chip, which will go into the same range of systems as the Intel N-Series.

      The comparison is valid for the GPU though, as it’s unlikely to be much better for the D2700, being based on the same GPU core, and the lower end C-60 still has a better GPU than Intel.

      Though it is expected that the E-450 should still edge out the D2700 in CPU performance, just not by as large a amount.  While the D2700 also has a lower 10W TDP, 3W less than the D525 and 8W less the the Zacate series.  So run time should remain a distinction and probably Intel’s main selling point. While entry level gaming will remain AMD’s main selling point.

      1. Agreed… it’s not a perfect comparison, but I was intrigued when I saw it and figured it was at least worth mentioning.

        I’m looking forward to testing the new C-Series and E-Series chips myself, as well as Intel’s Cedar Trail chips. The end of this year should be an interesting time in the mobile x86 chip space. 

    2. Actually it’s more like   E350 – DDR3-1066 vs E450 DDR-1600
      and E350 400Mhz GPU locked vs E450 400Mhz GPU with turbo to 600Mhz
      and E350 1.6Ghz locked vs E450 1.65Ghz with turbocore to 2.1Ghz

Comments are closed.