OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD E2 9000 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£250PassMark benchmark result:971N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.2 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):10 W

AMD E2 9000 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.5

Overall score

Score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

90%

3.5

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 97% of processors
3.5

Technical score

Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

3.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 96% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £250

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 E2 9000

Technical score
Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

3.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated Graphics

3.5
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD E2 9000 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.2/ 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 97% of models
Score components:

60%

3.5

Overall score

40%

9.2

Price

5.2
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
CPU threads
2
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94% of processors and equal to 5.9% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.2 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
2.2 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.2 GHz which is lower than that of 99.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.8 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.8 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.8 GHz which is lower than that of 95.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
28 nm
Semiconductor size
28 nm
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
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 3% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
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 2.9% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
L3 cache
0 MB
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.4% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-1866 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-1866 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 85.6% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.2% of processors and equal to 1.7% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R2
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R2
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor uses the Radeon R2 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 85.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Integrated GPU execution units
2
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.7% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
600 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
600 MHz
â–² Better than 80% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 600 MHz which is higher than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 69% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 68.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
10 W
Base power (PL1)
10 W
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 6-15 W
Show more

AMD E2 9000 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 77.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    90 °C
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 29.7% smaller die size
    Die size
    124.5 mm²
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (124.5 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    124.5 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo Core
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 71.4% higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    600 MHz
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (600 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    600 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo Core
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 29.7% smaller die size
    Die size
    124.5 mm²
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (124.5 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    124.5 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 71.4% higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    600 MHz
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (600 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    600 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 77.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    90 °C
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 92.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    371
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (371 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    371 vs 4,829
  • 90.8% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    971
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (971 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    971 vs 10,572.5
  • 66.9% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    828
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (828 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    828 vs 2,500
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 74.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    371
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (371 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    371 vs 1,471
  • 48.8% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.2 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Stoney Ridge
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    28 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 25.7% worse value for money
    AMD E2 9000 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.22 vs 6.6).
    5.22 vs 6.56
  • 4 years older release date
    Release date
    2016
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    June 2016
    2016 vs 2020
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 92.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    371
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (371 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    371 vs 4,829
  • 90.8% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    971
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (971 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    971 vs 10,572.5
  • 66.9% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    828
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (828 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    828 vs 2,500
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 74.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    371
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (371 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    371 vs 1,471
  • 48.8% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.2 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 1.8 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
  • 10 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    18
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (18 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    18 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Stoney Ridge
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    28 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 75.8% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.2 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    GlobalFoundries 28 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    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
  • 67.5% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    14.9 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (14.9 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    14.9 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    8
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 36.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,866 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1866 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    8 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-1866 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    Memory channels
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    1 vs 2
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon R2
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon R2 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon R2 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 10 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    90 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD E2 9000

  • Extremely budget-friendly entry-level processor for students and basic tasks
  • Highly power-efficient with a low 10W TDP, suitable for thin and light notebooks
  • Supports DDR4 RAM (up to 1866 MHz), which was an improvement over previous generations
  • Capable of running older indie games and basic legacy software
  • Often found in passively cooled, fanless laptops, resulting in silent operation

What we don't like about AMD E2 9000

  • Extremely slow performance; users report 10-minute wait times for simple page loads
  • Frequently reaches 100% CPU usage even during basic browsing or office tasks
  • Known to 'hang' or freeze while using standard applications like Microsoft Word
  • Poor multitasking due to having only 2 cores and 2 threads
  • Struggles significantly with Windows 10, often deemed 'unusably slow' by modern standards
  • Upgrading RAM or adding an SSD provides only minimal performance improvements due to the CPU bottleneck
  • Integrated Radeon R2 graphics are insufficient for modern gaming and cause heavy stuttering

Verdict

The AMD E2-9000 is an entry-level Stoney Ridge APU released in 2017, featuring 2 CPU cores and 2 threads with a base clock of 1.8 GHz and a turbo boost up to 2.2 GHz. Built on a 28nm process, it includes integrated Radeon R2 graphics (600 MHz), 1MB of L2 cache, and supports single-channel DDR4-1866 memory. Its main strengths are its very low 10W TDP, which allows for fanless designs and high energy efficiency in basic laptops, and its inclusion of a dedicated H.265 video engine. However, its primary cons include extremely limited multitasking performance due to the lack of multithreading, a dated dual-core architecture that struggles with modern applications, and very low memory bandwidth.

Compare AMD E2 9000 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 E2 9000 and other processors

No results found