Core i7-640UM vs E-300

Core i7-640UM vs E-300 Performance Spectrum

Core i7-640UM

2 / 4

1,168

0.0%

1,176

+0.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core i7-640UM vs E-300 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i7-640UM vs E-300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i7-640UM

2010

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,168 vs 1,176).

E-300

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $60 MSRP, while Core i7-640UM mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is E-300 better than Core i7-640UM?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-640UM is ahead with a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, E-300 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E-300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

E-300 is the better buy right now. E-300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $60 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i7-640UM is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (19.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

E-300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-640UM vs E-300 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i7-640UM

The Core i7-640UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.27 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 1,168 points. Launch price was $305.

E-300

The E-300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 August 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,176 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-640UM packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the E-300's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.27 GHz on the Core i7-640UM versus 1.3 GHz on the E-300 — a 54.3% clock advantage for the Core i7-640UM. The Core i7-640UM uses the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the E-300 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-640UM scores 1,168 against the E-300's 1,176 — a 0.7% lead for the E-300. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640UM vs 0 kB on the E-300.

Feature	Core i7-640UM	E-300
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.27 GHz+75%	1.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	32 nm-20%	40 nm
Architecture	Arrandale (2010−2011)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,168	1,176
Geekbench 6 Single	226	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	590	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-640UM uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E-300 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-640UM) vs 1 (E-300). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-640UM) vs 0 (E-300) — the Core i7-640UM offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Core i7-640UM	E-300
Socket	BGA1288	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-640UM) vs AMD-V (E-300). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake) (Core i7-640UM) and Radeon HD 6310 (E-300) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-640UM targets Legacy Laptop, E-300 targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Core i7-640UM rivals Core 2 Duo SU9600.

Feature	Core i7-640UM	E-300
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)	Radeon HD 6310
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Legacy Laptop	Budget Mobile