E1-6010 vs Pentium 957

E1-6010 vs Pentium 957 Performance Spectrum

E1-6010

2 / 2

1,006

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Pentium 957

2 / 2

1,015

+0.9%

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.

E1-6010 vs Pentium 957 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.

E1-6010 vs Pentium 957: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

E1-6010

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 17W, a 7W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,006 vs 1,015).

Pentium 957

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.9% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while E1-6010 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌70% higher power demand at 17W vs 10W.

Quick Answers

So, is E1-6010 better than Pentium 957?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, E1-6010 is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Pentium 957 pulls ahead with 0.9% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Pentium 957 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E1-6010 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. E1-6010 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Pentium 957 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 1.7% in the shared gaming data.

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

E1-6010 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

E1-6010 vs Pentium 957 Technical Specifications

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

E1-6010

The E1-6010 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Beema (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.35 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,006 points. Launch price was $50.

Pentium 957

The Pentium 957 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 June 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,015 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the E1-6010 and Pentium 957 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.35 GHz on the E1-6010 versus 1.2 GHz on the Pentium 957 — a 11.8% clock advantage for the E1-6010. The E1-6010 uses the Beema (2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Pentium 957 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the E1-6010 scores 1,006 against the Pentium 957's 1,015 — a 0.9% lead for the Pentium 957.

Feature	E1-6010	Pentium 957
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.35 GHz+13%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1024 kB+300%	256K (per core)
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Beema (2014)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,006	1,015