E-300 vs Athlon 64 X2 4000+
E-300
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The E-300 is positioned at rank 891 and the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is on rank 1082, so the E-300 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar E-300
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | E-300 | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Zacate (2011−2013) / 40 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Windsor (2006−2007) / 90 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | E-300 | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+100%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of E-300 and Athlon 64 X2 4000+
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.
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,175 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
Both the E-300 and Athlon 64 X2 4000+ share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the E-300 versus 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ — a 42.4% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 X2 4000+. The E-300 uses the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture (40 nm), while the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses Windsor (2006−2007) (90 nm). In PassMark, the E-300 scores 1,176 against the Athlon 64 X2 4000+'s 1,175 — a 0.1% lead for the E-300. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | E-300 | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.3 GHz | 2 GHz+54% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core) | 512K |
| Process | 40 nm-56% | 90 nm |
| Architecture | Zacate (2011−2013) | Windsor (2006−2007) |
| PassMark | 1,176 | 1,175 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 195 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 380 |
Memory & Platform
The E-300 uses the FT1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses AM2 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the E-300 versus DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ — the E-300 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The E-300 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (E-300) vs 2 (Athlon 64 X2 4000+). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes.
| Feature | E-300 | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FT1 | AM2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1066+50% | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AMD-V virtualization. The E-300 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6310), while the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: E-300 targets Budget Mobile, Athlon 64 X2 4000+ targets Legacy Desktop.
| Feature | E-300 | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon HD 6310 | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Budget Mobile | Legacy Desktop |
Value Analysis
The E-300 launched at $60 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ debuted at $328. At current prices ($20 vs $10), the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the E-300 delivers 58.8 pts/$ vs 117.5 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ — making the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ the 66.6% better value option.
| Feature | E-300 | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $60-82% | $328 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $10-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 58.8 | 117.5+100% |
| Release Date | 2011 | 2006 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on E-300 and Athlon 64 X2 4000+
