OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD E1-2100 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark multi-core score:406N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FT3TDP (Thermal design power):9 W

AMD E1-2100 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.1/10

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

40%

3.9

Technical score

25%

3.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 95% of processors
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 93%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.2

Architecture

10%

3.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

5.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 88%
3.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models

3.9

Mark 6.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.5

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 93%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £260
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD E1-2100

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.2

Architecture

10%

3.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

5.4

Integrated graphics

3.9
Reviews score
3.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

6.3
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FT3
This processor uses the FT3 CPU socket, which is older than that of 64.2% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES, BMI1, ABM
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES, BMI1, ABM instruction sets, which is broader support than 50.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.0 GHz which is lower than that of 99.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
406
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 406 in PassMark, which is lower than 100% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
28 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 28 nm process node, which is older than that of 94.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 28 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 94.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,333 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.6% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1333 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 1.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 8210
This processor uses the Radeon HD 8210 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 83.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.5% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 49% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
9 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 9 W which is lower than that of 95.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
9 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 9 W which is lower than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD E1-2100 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 80% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 39.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (107 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    107 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 80% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 39.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (107 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    107 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 80% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 80% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • 98.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (97 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    97 vs 5,209
  • 96.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (406 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    406 vs 11,469
  • 41.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models

    3.9

    Mark 6.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.5

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.9 vs 6.7
  • 89% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (169 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    169 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 2.33x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (28 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    28 nm vs 12 nm
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 41.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models

    3.9

    Mark 6.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.5

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.9 vs 6.7
  • 15.1% worse value for money
    AMD E1-2100 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.33 vs 7.3).
    6.33 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 7 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
    May 2013
    2013 vs 2020
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES, BMI1, ABM vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES, BMI1, ABM vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 98.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (97 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    97 vs 5,209
  • 96.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (406 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    406 vs 11,469
  • 89% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (169 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    169 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 18 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (10 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    10 vs 28
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 2.33x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (28 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    28 nm vs 12 nm
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 58.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 77.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (10.7 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    10.7 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,333 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    1 vs 2
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon HD 8210 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon HD 8,210 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 10 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

2.0
DigitalJon
≈ estimated
09/07/2025
Hands-on test · laptop performance and driver problems
Verdict
AMD E1-2100 is essentially unusable, freezing during graphics driver installation and struggling even with Solitaire.
4.0
Huguito ✔
≈ estimated
20/09/2021
Game and app benchmark tests · real-time recordings
Verdict
The AMD E1-2100 isn't recommended; many games are unplayable, though it handles emulators, older engines and Office.
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD E1-2100

  • Extremely low power consumption (9W TDP), suitable for fanless designs.
  • Affordable entry-point for very basic, budget-oriented devices.
  • Capable of handling very light tasks like word processing, email, and basic web browsing.
  • Integrated Radeon HD 8210 graphics can handle older, low-demand games like Minecraft or GTA: San Andreas at low settings.
  • Supports modern instruction sets like AVX and AES, which is rare for such a low-end chip.

What customers don't like about AMD E1-2100

  • Extremely slow 1.0 GHz clock speed leads to significant lag even during simple OS navigation.
  • Poor multitasking performance; even opening a few browser tabs can overload the CPU.
  • Struggles with high-definition video playback; 1080p video often buffers or lags.
  • Incapable of running modern AAA games or demanding software like 3D rendering.
  • Soldered (BGA) configuration means it cannot be upgraded in most laptops.
  • Poor energy efficiency by modern standards despite its low power draw.

Verdict

The AMD E1-2100 is an entry-level dual-core Accelerated Processing Unit (APU) from the Kabini architecture, designed for ultra-compact laptops and tablets. It features two Jaguar CPU cores clocked at 1.0 GHz, a 1 MB L2 cache, and an integrated Radeon HD 8210 GPU with 128 shaders running at 300 MHz. Its primary strengths are its extremely low 9W Thermal Design Power (TDP) and 28 nm manufacturing process, which allow for passive cooling and extended battery life in portable devices. However, the processor suffers from significant performance limitations; its low clock speed leads to sluggish multitasking and slow response times even for basic tasks like web browsing, while the integrated graphics are insufficient for modern gaming or high-demand media tasks.

Compare AMD E1-2100 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD E1-2100 and other processors

No results found