Amd a6 5200 vs intel i3: AMD A6-5200 vs Intel Core i3-3217U

AMD A6-5200 vs Intel Core i3-3110M: What is the difference?

30points

AMD A6-5200

38points

Intel Core i3-3110M

Comparison winner

vs

64 facts in comparison

AMD A6-5200

Intel Core i3-3110M

Why is AMD A6-5200 better than Intel Core i3-3110M?

  • 1.67x faster CPU speed?
    4 x 2GHzvs2 x 2.4GHz
  • 1.5MB bigger L2 cache?
    2MBvs0.5MB
  • 128KB bigger L1 cache?
    256KBvs128KB
  • Has AES?
  • 0.3 newer version of OpenGL?
    4.3vs4

Why is Intel Core i3-3110M better than AMD A6-5200?

  • 6nm smaller semiconductor size?
    22nmvs28nm
  • 1 newer version of PCI Express (PCIe)?
    3vs2
  • Uses multithreading?
  • 125MHz faster GPU turbo speed?
    1000MHzvs875MHz
  • Has NX bit?

Which are the most popular comparisons?

AMD A6-5200

vs

Intel Core i5-4200U

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

Intel Pentium Silver N6000

AMD A6-5200

vs

Intel Core i5-3337U

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

AMD A4-4300M

AMD A6-5200

vs

AMD A4-5000

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

Intel Core i5-2410M

AMD A6-5200

vs

Intel Core i5-2537M

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

Intel Core i5-3380M

AMD A6-5200

vs

Intel Core i3-2348M

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

Intel Core i3-1115G4

AMD A6-5200

vs

Intel Celeron J3060

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

Intel Core i7-3612QM

AMD A6-5200

vs

Intel Core i3-3227U

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

AMD E2-3000M

AMD A6-5200

vs

Intel Core i5-1155G7

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

Intel Core i5-2520M

AMD A6-5200

vs

Intel Core i5-1235U

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

AMD E-240

Intel Core i3-3110M

vs

AMD Athlon II X2 270

Price comparison

User reviews

Performance

1. CPU speed

4 x 2GHz

2 x 2.4GHz

The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.

2.CPU threads

More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.

3.turbo clock speed

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

4.Has an unlocked multiplier

✖AMD A6-5200

✖Intel Core i3-3110M

Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.

5.L2 cache

A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

6.L3 cache

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

7.L1 cache

A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

8.L2 core

0.25MB/core

0.25MB/core

More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

9.L3 core

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

1.5MB/core

More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

Memory

1.RAM speed

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

1600MHz

It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.

2.maximum memory bandwidth

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

25.6GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.DDR memory version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.

4.memory channels

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.

5.maximum memory amount

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.

6.bus transfer rate

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

7.Supports ECC memory

✖AMD A6-5200

✖Intel Core i3-3110M

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

8.eMMC version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.

9.bus speed

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

Benchmarks

1. PassMark result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.

2.PassMark result (single)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.

3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

5. Cinebench R20 (single) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

6.Geekbench 5 result (single)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

7.Blender (bmw27) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

8.Blender (classroom) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

9.performance per watt

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.

Features

1.uses multithreading

✖AMD A6-5200

✔Intel Core i3-3110M

Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.

2.Has AES

✔AMD A6-5200

✖Intel Core i3-3110M

AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

3.Has AVX

✔AMD A6-5200

✔Intel Core i3-3110M

AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.

4.SSE version

SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

5.Has F16C

✔AMD A6-5200

✔Intel Core i3-3110M

F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

6.bits executed at a time

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.

7.Has MMX

✔AMD A6-5200

✔Intel Core i3-3110M

MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

8.Has TrustZone

✖AMD A6-5200

✖Intel Core i3-3110M

A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).

9.front-end width

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best CPUs?

AMD A6-5200 vs Intel Core i3-370M


Comparative analysis of AMD A6-5200 and Intel Core i3-370M processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphics interfaces, Graphics API support, Compatibility, Peripherals, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization, Security & Reliability.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps).

AMD A6-5200

Buy on Amazon


vs

Intel Core i3-370M

Buy on Amazon

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD A6-5200

  • CPU is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 4 month(s) later
  • 2 more cores, run more applications at once: 4 vs 2
  • A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 28 nm vs 32 nm
  • 2x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
  • 4x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
  • Around 40% lower typical power consumption: 25 Watt vs 35 Watt
  • Around 46% better performance in PassMark — CPU mark: 1647 vs 1128
  • 8. 7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s): 2.512 vs 0.288
  • Around 17% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1.954 vs 1.677










Launch date 23 May 2013 vs 10 January 2010
Number of cores 4 vs 2
Manufacturing process technology 28 nm vs 32 nm
L1 cache 256 KB vs 64 KB (per core)
L2 cache 2 MB vs 512 KB
Thermal Design Power (TDP) 25 Watt vs 35 Watt
PassMark — CPU mark 1647 vs 1128
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 2.512 vs 0.288
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 1.954 vs 1.677

Reasons to consider the Intel Core i3-370M

  • Around 48% better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 975 vs 661
  • Around 53% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core: 343 vs 224
  • Around 7% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 750 vs 703
  • Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 9.804 vs 8.259
  • Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.175 vs 0.156






PassMark — Single thread mark 975 vs 661
Geekbench 4 — Single Core 343 vs 224
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core 750 vs 703
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 9.804 vs 8.259
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 0.175 vs 0.156

Compare benchmarks


CPU 1: AMD A6-5200
CPU 2: Intel Core i3-370M









PassMark — Single thread mark

CPU 1
CPU 2


PassMark — CPU mark

CPU 1
CPU 2


Geekbench 4 — Single Core

CPU 1
CPU 2


Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core

CPU 1
CPU 2


CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)

CPU 1
CPU 2


CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)

CPU 1
CPU 2


CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)

CPU 1
CPU 2


CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)

CPU 1
CPU 2











Name AMD A6-5200 Intel Core i3-370M
PassMark — Single thread mark 661 975
PassMark — CPU mark 1647 1128
Geekbench 4 — Single Core 224 343
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core 703 750
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 2.512 0.288
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 8.259 9.804
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 0.156 0.175
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 6.377
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 1.954 1.677
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 549
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) 1223
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3036
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 549
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 1223
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3036

Compare specifications (specs)
































































AMD A6-5200 Intel Core i3-370M
Architecture codename Kabini Arrandale
Family AMD A-Series Processors
Launch date 23 May 2013 10 January 2010
OPN PIB
OPN Tray AM5200IAJ44HMD
Place in performance rating 1978 2513
Series AMD A6-Series APU for Desktops Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors
Vertical segment Desktop Mobile
Launch price (MSRP)

$245
Price now

$39. 96
Processor Number

i3-370M
Status

Discontinued
Value for money (0-100)

14.87
64 bit support
Base frequency 2 GHz 2.40 GHz
Die size 246 mm 81 mm2
L1 cache 256 KB 64 KB (per core)
L2 cache 2 MB 512 KB
Manufacturing process technology 28 nm 32 nm
Maximum case temperature (TCase) 90 °C
Maximum core temperature 90°C 90°C for rPGA, 105°C for BGA
Number of cores 4 2
Number of threads 4 4
Transistor count 1178 million 382 million
Unlocked
Bus Speed

2. 5 GT/s DMI
Front-side bus (FSB)

2500 MHz
L3 cache

3072 KB
Maximum frequency

2.4 GHz
Max memory channels 1 2
Supported memory frequency 1600 MHz
Supported memory types DDR3 DDR3 800/1066
Maximum memory bandwidth

17. 1 GB/s
Maximum memory size

8 GB
Enduro
Graphics max frequency 600 MHz 667 MHz
iGPU core count 128
Number of pipelines 128
Processor graphics AMD Radeon HD 8400 Intel HD Graphics
Switchable graphics
Unified Video Decoder (UVD)
Video Codec Engine (VCE)
Graphics base frequency

500 MHz
Graphics max dynamic frequency

667 MHz
Intel® Clear Video HD technology

Intel® Clear Video technology

Intel® Flexible Display Interface (Intel® FDI)

DisplayPort
HDMI
Number of displays supported

2
DirectX 11
Vulkan
Max number of CPUs in a configuration 1 1
Sockets supported FT3 PGA988
Thermal Design Power (TDP) 25 Watt 35 Watt
Low Halogen Options Available

Package Size

rPGA 37. 5mmx 37.5mm, BGA 34mmx28mm
PCI Express revision 2.0 2.0
Max number of PCIe lanes

16
PCIe configurations

1×16
AMD App Acceleration
AMD Elite Experiences
AMD HD3D technology
Enhanced Virus Protection (EVP)
Fused Multiply-Add (FMA)
Fused Multiply-Add 4 (FMA4)
Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX)
Intel® AES New Instructions
PowerGating
PowerNow
VirusProtect
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology

Flexible Display interface (FDI)

Idle States

Instruction set extensions

Intel® SSE4. 1, Intel® SSE4.2
Intel 64

Intel® Fast Memory Access

Intel® Flex Memory Access

Intel® Hyper-Threading technology

Intel® Turbo Boost technology

Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility

Physical Address Extensions (PAE)

36-bit
Thermal Monitoring

AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™)
IOMMU 2. 0
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x)

Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)

Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT)

Execute Disable Bit (EDB)

Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT)

Intel Core i3-2310M vs AMD A6-5200








Intel Core i3-2310M vs AMD A6-5200

Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the Intel Core i3-2310M on one side and the AMD A6-5200 on the other side. The first is dedicated to the laptop sector, It has 2 cores, 4 threads, a maximum frequency of 2,1GHz. The second is used on the laptop segment, it has a total of 4 cores, 4 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 2,0 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values ​​obtained in Geekbench 4 and Cinebench R15.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.

Specifications:

Processor

Intel Core i3-2310M

AMD A6-5200
Market (main)

Laptop

Laptop
ISA

x86-64 (64 bit)

x86-64 (64 bit)
Microarchitecture

Sandy Bridge

Jaguar
Core name

Sandy Bridge

Kabini
Family

Core i3-2000

A6-5000
Part number(s), S-Spec

FF8062700999405,

Q1SP, SR04R

AM5200IAJ44HM
Release date

Q1 2011

Q2 2013
Lithography

32 nm

28 nm
Transistors

624. 000.000

1.178.000.000
Cores

2

4
Threads

4

4
Base frequency

2,1 GHz

2,0 GHz
Turbo frequency


Cache memory

3 MB

2 MB
Max memory capacity

16 GB

8 GB
Memory types

DDR3 1066/1333

DDR3-1600, DDR3L-1600, DDR3U-1066
Max # of memory channels

2

2
Max memory bandwidth

21,3 GB/s

12,8 GB/s
Max PCIe lanes

16

8
TDP

35 W

25 W
GPU integrated graphics

Intel HD Graphics 3000 Mobile

AMD Radeon HD 8400 Mobile
GPU cores

2
GPU execution units

12


GPU shading units

96

128
GPU base clock

650 MHz

600 MHz
GPU boost clock

1100 MHz

600 MHz
GPU FP32 floating point

192 GFLOPS

153,6 GFLOPS
Socket

BGA1023, PPGA988

BGA769, FT3
Maximum temperature

85°C

90°C
Crypto engine

Advanced Encryption Standard
Security

Enhanced Virus Protection
CPU-Z single thread

180

115
CPU-Z multi thread

504

514
Cinebench R15 single thread

68

51
Cinebench R15 multi-thread

171

145
Cinebench R20 single thread

161

80
Cinebench R20 multi-thread

382

348
Cinebench R23 single thread

308

228
Cinebench R23 multi-thread

731

854
PassMark single thread

935

646
PassMark CPU Mark

1. 172

1.651
(Windows 64-bit)
Geekbench 4 single core

1.884

1.081
(Windows 64-bit)
Geekbench 4 multi-core

3.597

2.857
(Windows)
Geekbench 5 single core

370

227
(Windows)
Geekbench 5 multi-core

802

686
(SGEMM)
GFLOPS performance

42,72 GFLOPS

25,4 GFLOPS
(Multi-core / watt performance)
Performance / watt ratio

103 pts / W

114 pts / W
Amazon


eBay


Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.

Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.

The processor AMD A6-5200 has a larger number of cores, the maximum frequency of Intel Core i3-2310M is greater, that the thermal dissipation power of AMD A6-5200 is less. The AMD A6-5200 was started more recently.

Performances :

Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.





CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score
AMD A6-5200

115

514
Intel Core i3-2310M

180

504

In single core, the difference is 57%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 2%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.





Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score
Intel Core i3-2310M

68

171
AMD A6-5200

51

145

In single core, the difference is 33%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 18%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.





Cinebench R20 — Multi-thread & single thread score
Intel Core i3-2310M

161

382
AMD A6-5200

80

348

In single core, the difference is 101%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 10%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Cinebench R20 is a multi-platform test software which allows to evaluate the hardware capacities of a device such as a computer, a tablet, a server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant.





Cinebench R23 — Multi-thread & single thread score
AMD A6-5200

228

854
Intel Core i3-2310M

308

731

In single core, the difference is 35%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 17%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Cinebench R23 is cross-platform testing software that allows you to assess the hardware capabilities of a device such as a computer, tablet, server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant. The test scene contains no less than 2,000 objects and more than 300,000 polygons in total.





PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread
AMD A6-5200

646

1.651
Intel Core i3-2310M

935

1.172

In single core, the difference is 45%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 41%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.

On Windows 64-bit:





Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows 64-bit
Intel Core i3-2310M

1.884

3.597
AMD A6-5200

1.081

2.857

In single core, the difference is 74%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 26%.

On Linux 64-bit:





Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Linux 64-bit
Intel Core i3-2310M

1.800

3.195
AMD A6-5200

1.055

1.969

In single core, the difference is 71%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 62%.

On Android 64-bit:





Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Android 64-bit
Intel Core i3-2310M

2.026

4.099
AMD A6-5200

1.179

3.068

In single core, the difference is 72%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 34%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.

On Windows:





Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows
Intel Core i3-2310M

370

802
AMD A6-5200

227

686

In single core, the difference is 63%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 17%.

On Linux:





Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Linux
Intel Core i3-2310M

422

906
AMD A6-5200

245

773

In single core, the difference is 72%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 17%.

On Android:





Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Android
AMD A6-5200

252

792
Intel Core i3-2310M

301

547

In single core, the difference is 19%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 45%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality.

Equivalence:

Intel Core i3-2310M AMD equivalentAMD A6-5200 Intel equivalent

AMD A6-5200 vs. Intel Celeron J1900

AMD A6-5200

The AMD A6-5200 operates with 4 cores and 4 CPU threads. It run at No turbo base No turbo all cores while the TDP is set at 25 W.The processor is attached to the N/A CPU socket. This version includes 2.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR3L-1600 SO-DIMM RAM and features PCIe Gen lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Kabini (Jaguar) Architecture is enhanced with 28 nm technology and supports AMD-V. The product was launched on Q3/2013

Intel Celeron J1900

The Intel Celeron J1900 operates with 4 cores and 4 CPU threads. It run at 2.42 GHz base 2.42 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 10 W.The processor is attached to the BGA 1170 CPU socket. This version includes 2.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support RAM and features 2.0 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Bay Trail Architecture is enhanced with 22 nm technology and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT. The product was launched on Q4/2013

AMD A6-5200

Intel Celeron J1900

Compare Detail

2.80 GHz Frequency 2.00 GHz
4 Cores 4
No turbo Turbo (1 Core) 2.42 GHz
No turbo Turbo (All Cores) 2.42 GHz
No Hyperthreading No
Yes Overclocking No
normal Core Architecture normal

AMD Radeon HD 8400

GPU

Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail GT1)

No turbo GPU (Turbo) 0. 85 GHz
28 nm Technology 22 nm
No turbo GPU (Turbo) 0.85 GHz
11.1 DirectX Version 11.2
2 Max. displays 2
DDR3L-1600 SO-DIMM Memory
2 Memory channels 2
Max memory
No ECC No
L2 Cache
2.00 MB L3 Cache 2.00 MB
PCIe version 2.0
PCIe lanes 4
28 nm Technology 22 nm
N/A Socket BGA 1170
25 W TDP 10 W
AMD-V Virtualization VT-x, VT-x EPT
Q3/2013 Release date Q4/2013

Show more data

Show more data

Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)

The theoretical computing performance of the internal graphics unit of the processor with simple accuracy (32 bit) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS indicates how many billion floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)

Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)

Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The iGPU test uses the CPU internal graphic unit to execute OpenGL commands.

Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark

Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Comparison. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Comparison’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.

Electric Usage Estimate

Average hours of use per day

Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)

Power cost, dollar per kWh

Electric Usage Estimate

Average hours of use per day

Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)

Power cost, dollar per kWh

AMD A6-5200 Intel Celeron J1900
25 W Max TDP 10 W
NA Power consumption per day (kWh) NA
NA Running cost per day NA
NA Power consumption per year (kWh) NA
NA Running cost per year NA

Popular Comparision

Comments

Intel Core i3-7300T vs AMD A6-5200

VS

Intel Core i3-7300T vs AMD A6-5200 Comparison by technical specs (TDP, performance, memory, compatibility). CPU performance analysis in the benchmark comparison (in the mode of a single core and all the cores).

Intel Core i3-7300T

AMD A6-5200

Which one?

The comparative analysis of technical specifications of Intel Core i3-7300T and AMD A6-5200 shows which model is better for games and operational apps. We recommend paying your attention to yellow highlighted specs.

CPU Cores and Base Frequency

 Intel Core i3-7300T vs AMD A6-5200

3.50 GHz

Frequency

2.80 GHz

2

CPU Cores

4

No turbo

Turbo (1 Core)

No turbo

4

CPU Threads

4

No turbo

Turbo (2 Cores)

no data

Yes

Hyperthreading

No

No

Overclocking

Yes

no data

Turbo (4 Cores)

No turbo

Internal Graphics

Intel HD Graphics 630

GPU name

AMD Radeon HD 8400

0. 35 GHz

GPU frequency

0.60 GHz

1.10 GHz

GPU (Turbo)

No turbo

9.5

Generation

5

12

DirectX Version

11.1

24

Execution units

2

192

Shader

128

64 GB

Max. Memory

2 GB

3

Max. displays

2

14 nm

Technology

28 nm

Q2/2016

Release date

Q2/2013

Hardware codec support

Decode / Encode

h364

Decode

Decode / Encode

JPEG

Decode / Encode

Decode / Encode

h365 8bit

No

Decode / Encode

h365 10bit

No

Decode / Encode

VP8

No

Decode / Encode

VP9

No

Decode

VC-1

Decode

Decode / Encode

AVC

Decode

RAM and PCIe

DDR4-2400

Memory type

DDR3L-1600 SO-DIMM

2

Memory channels

2

No

ECC

No

3.0

PCIe version

16

PCIe lanes

Encryption

Yes

AES-NI

Yes

Thermal Management

35 W

TDP

25 W

Tjunction max.

TDP up

TDP down

Technical details

4.00 MB

L3-Cache

2.00 MB

14 nm

Technology

28nm

Kaby Lake

Architecture

Kabini

VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d

Virtualization

AMD-V

LGA 1151

Socket

N/A

Q1/2017

Release date

Q3/2013

ca. 190 $

Market price

Devices using this processor

Unknown

Used in

Unknown

CPU generation and family

Intel Core i3-7300T vs AMD A6-5200

Which to buy

The benchmark comparison of Intel Core i3-7300T and AMD A6-5200 allows defining which CPU is currently better, more modern and efficient. The more points, the better.

Compare Benchmarks

Real world tests of Intel Core i3-7300T vs AMD A6-5200:

Popular comparisons

1. Intel Celeron G1820TE vs.
AMD A6-5200
2. Intel Core i5-3470 vs.
AMD A6-5200
3. AMD A6-5200 vs.
AMD C-70
4. Intel Core i7-8565U vs.
AMD A6-5200
5. Intel Core i3-7300T vs.
AMD Phenom II X4 980
6. Intel Core i3-7300T vs.
Intel Core i7-7920HQ
7. Intel Core i3-7300T vs.
AMD A6-5200

AMD A6-5200 Review — CPUAgent

The A6-5200 is one of AMD’s entry-level-low-power Laptop processors. It was released in 2013 with 4 cores and 4 threads. With base clock at 2.8GHz, max speed at 2.8GHz, and a 25W power rating. The A6-5200 is based on the Kabini 28nm family and is part of the A6 series.

The AMD A6-5200 marks yet another blast from Team AMD, ramping up the intensity of the AMD vs Intel processor war. Still, though, there’s more than just core counts when it comes to a mainstream processor, as single-core performance needs to be on point, especially if you’re hoping to play the best PC games.

AMD’s Jaguar series has landed, upping the ante with Intel in its high-stakes game for desktop PC market dominance with a well-rounded lineup of new chips that push mainstream platforms to higher core counts and more raw compute than we’ve ever seen. As a result, Intel’s commanding presence in the enthusiast space is threatened in a way we haven’t seen in over a decade.

As we’ve seen, gaming remains an advantage for Intel, so if squeezing out every last frame is all you care about, Intel’s processors are a good choice. Much of that performance advantage will be less noticeable when gaming at higher resolutions, or if you pair the processors with a lesser graphics card.

One of the nice things about the AMD A6-5200 processors is that the retail boxed models come with a CPU cooler. So, you can pick something like the AMD A6-5200 up for $190.92 and don’t need to spend any extra money on CPU cooling.

The AMD A6-5200 retail boxed processor comes with the traditional ‘pancake’ CPU cooler. Nothing fancy, but it gets the job done on this processor which is rated at 25W TDP. You do not need to have an aftermarket cooling solution unless you want to.

The A6-5200 clocks up to 2.8Ghz just as it promises on the box, and with AMD’s software you can take one of the cores all the way up to 2.9GHz. However, don’t expect to get much beyond that without seriously upgrading your cooling solution and manually tweaking voltages behind the operating system level.

There’s a saying that two heads are better than one and, well, 4-cores are better than 2. The extra processing power of the A6-5200 puts Intel’s processors to shame, including both its closest competitor and a much higher-spec part.

The 4-core A6-5200 is AMD’s first A6 processor that doesn’t feature simultaneous multi-threading, so it only schedules 4 threads at a time, like Core i5-4310U. Still, when it’s up against Intel’s 2 cores, the A6-5200 boasts a notable resource advantage.

Below is a comparison of all graphics cards average FPS performance (using an average of 80+ games at ultra quality settings), combined with the AMD A6-5200.










































































Graphics Card Price Cost Per Frame Avg 1080p Avg 1440p Avg 4K


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 24GB
$ 1,499 $ 22 68.1 FPS
138.7 FPS
109.2 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT 16GB
$ 999 $ 15. 7 63.8 FPS
130.8 FPS
101.3 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT 16GB
$ 649 $ 10.8 60.1 FPS
123.2 FPS
95.3 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 20GB
$ 799 $ 13. 5 59.4 FPS
123.4 FPS
100.7 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB
$ 699 $ 11.8 59.4 FPS
120.9 FPS
95.2 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti 10GB
$ 599 $ 11. 8 50.9 FPS
104.6 FPS
83.8 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 6800 16GB
$ 579 $ 12.2 47.6 FPS
97.5 FPS
75.5 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8GB
$ 499 $ 11 45. 4 FPS
92.5 FPS
72.8 FPS


NVIDIA TITAN RTX 24GB
$ 2,499 $ 59.9 41.7 FPS
87.7 FPS
69.5 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB
$ 1,299 $ 32 40. 6 FPS
85.4 FPS
67.6 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB
$ 479 $ 11.9 40.1 FPS
82.7 FPS
63.1 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB
$ 399 $ 10.7 37. 2 FPS
77.8 FPS
62.4 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8GB
$ 699 $ 19 36.8 FPS
76.7 FPS
60.5 FPS


NVIDIA TITAN V 12GB
$ 2,999 $ 85 35.3 FPS
74. 3 FPS
60 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 8GB
$ 699 $ 20.1 34.8 FPS
71.8 FPS
56.1 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT 8GB
$ 379 $ 11.4 33.3 FPS
68.8 FPS
53. 2 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB
$ 759 $ 23.3 32.6 FPS
68.5 FPS
53.9 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8GB
$ 499 $ 15.4 32.4 FPS
66.1 FPS
52 FPS


NVIDIA TITAN Xp 12GB
$ 1,199 $ 37. 5 32 FPS
66.1 FPS
53.2 FPS


AMD Radeon VII 16GB
$ 699 $ 21.8 32 FPS
65.6 FPS
50.8 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB
$ 399 $ 12.8 31. 2 FPS
63.8 FPS
49.4 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 8GB
$ 499 $ 16.3 30.7 FPS
61.7 FPS
49.2 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB
$ 329 $ 10.8 30. 5 FPS
62.4 FPS
49.6 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER 8GB
$ 400 $ 13.7 29.1 FPS
57.5 FPS
45 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 5700 8GB
$ 349 $ 12.2 28. 6 FPS
58.6 FPS
45.3 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
$ 499 $ 18 27.7 FPS
56 FPS
43.4 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB
$ 350 $ 12.8 27.4 FPS
52. 9 FPS
40.6 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT 6GB
$ 279 $ 10.4 26.9 FPS
54.8 FPS
42.2 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 295X2 4GB
$ 1,499 $ 57.7 26 FPS
51.7 FPS
42. 7 FPS


AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB
$ 499 $ 19.3 25.9 FPS
53.1 FPS
41 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB
$ 409 $ 15.9 25.7 FPS
51.8 FPS
40. 1 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti 6GB
$ 249 $ 9.9 25.1 FPS
50.4 FPS
39.6 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
$ 999 $ 40 25 FPS
49.8 FPS
38. 6 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB
$ 279 $ 11.4 24.4 FPS
49.3 FPS
38.1 FPS


AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB
$ 399 $ 16.4 24.3 FPS
49.7 FPS
38. 4 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 8GB
$ 399 $ 16.9 23.6 FPS
47.3 FPS
36.3 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6GB
$ 229 $ 10 23 FPS
46.6 FPS
36 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB
$ 649 $ 29. 9 21.7 FPS
43.6 FPS
33.7 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 6GB
$ 220 $ 10.1 21.7 FPS
43.8 FPS
33.8 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 590 8GB
$ 279 $ 13.5 20. 6 FPS
40.3 FPS
30.5 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 FURY X 4GB
$ 649 $ 32.9 19.7 FPS
41.5 FPS
32.9 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER 4GB
$ 160 $ 8.5 18. 9 FPS
38 FPS
29.3 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 8GB
$ 199 $ 10.6 18.7 FPS
36.7 FPS
27.6 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 4GB
$ 549 $ 29.5 18. 6 FPS
37 FPS
28.8 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB
$ 229 $ 12.6 18.2 FPS
35.7 FPS
26.8 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 Nano 4GB
$ 649 $ 36.1 18 FPS
37. 1 FPS
29.2 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK 6GB
$ 999 $ 57.4 17.4 FPS
34.3 FPS
27.8 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 FURY 4GB
$ 549 $ 32.3 17 FPS
34. 9 FPS
27.2 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB
$ 254 $ 15 16.9 FPS
33.4 FPS
25.8 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB 4GB
$ 169 $ 10.1 16.8 FPS
32. 9 FPS
24.8 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 390X 8GB
$ 429 $ 26.3 16.3 FPS
33.5 FPS
26.2 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB
$ 170 $ 10.6 16.1 FPS
31. 8 FPS
24.6 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB
$ 329 $ 20.8 15.8 FPS
30.9 FPS
24.9 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB
$ 400 $ 26.1 15.3 FPS
31.2 FPS
24. 7 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 390 8GB
$ 329 $ 21.6 15.2 FPS
30.6 FPS
22.5 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 570 4GB
$ 169 $ 11.2 15.1 FPS
30.2 FPS
22.8 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4GB
$ 149 $ 10. 3 14.4 FPS
28.8 FPS
22.2 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB
$ 179 $ 13.4 13.4 FPS
27 FPS
20.8 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 380X 4GB
$ 229 $ 20.3 11. 3 FPS
22.5 FPS
17.7 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 285 2GB
$ 249 $ 24.7 10.1 FPS
20.3 FPS
15 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 380 2GB
$ 199 $ 19.7 10.1 FPS
20. 1 FPS
15 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB
$ 169 $ 17.1 9.9 FPS
19.9 FPS
15.3 FPS


AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB
$ 279 $ 28.5 9.8 FPS
19.8 FPS
14. 4 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 2GB
$ 199 $ 20.5 9.7 FPS
19.2 FPS
14.7 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3GB
$ 169 $ 20.1 8.4 FPS
16.7 FPS
12.7 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 560 4GB
$ 99 $ 12. 7 7.8 FPS
15.3 FPS
11.6 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 2GB
$ 159 $ 20.6 7.7 FPS
15 FPS
11.8 FPS


AMD Radeon R7 370 2GB
$ 149 $ 19.9 7. 5 FPS
14.1 FPS
11.2 FPS


AMD Radeon R7 265 2GB
$ 149 $ 19.9 7.5 FPS
13.6 FPS
10.8 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB
$ 140 $ 20.3 6.9 FPS
13. 6 FPS
10.4 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB
$ 149 $ 22.2 6.7 FPS
11.7 FPS
9.3 FPS


AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB
$ 79 $ 14.4 5.5 FPS
10.8 FPS
8. 1 FPS


NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 2GB
$ 79 $ 15.2 5.2 FPS
10.2 FPS
7.5 FPS

AMD A6-5200 vs Intel Core i3-3110M: What is the difference?

Smartphone-graphic wire headphones

30 BALLLA

AMD A6-5200

38 BALLLA

Intel Core i3-3110M

Winner when compared to

9000 VS

64 facts compared to

AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD 3110M

Why is AMD A6-5200 better than Intel Core i3-3110M?

  • 1. 67x higher CPU speed?
    4 x 2GHz vs 2 x 2.4GHz
  • 1.5MB more L2 cache?
    2MB vs 0.5MB
  • 128KB more L1 cache?
    256KB vs 128KB
  • Has AES?
  • 0.3 newer version of OpenGL?
    4.3 vs 4

Why is Intel Core i3-3110M better than AMD A6-5200?

  • Smaller 6nm semiconductors?
    22nm vs 28nm
  • 1 newer PCI Express (PCIe) version?
    3 vs 2
  • Uses multithreading?
  • 125MHz faster GPU turbo speed?
    1000MHz vs 875MHz
  • Has NX bit?

What are the most popular comparisons?

AMD A6-5200

VS

Intel Core i5-4200u

Intel Core i3-31110m

VS

Intel Pentium Silver

AMD A63000 9000 ° 9000 INTEL Core0003

Intel Core i3-3110m

VS

A4-4300M

AMD A6-5200

VS

AMD A4-5000

Intel Core i3-3110M

VS

Intel Core I5-2410M AMD A6-5200

VS

Intel Core i5-2537M

Intel Core i3-3110M

VS

Intel Core i5-3380m

AMD A6-5200 9000 9000 VS

Intel Core I3-234848M Core i3-3110M

vs

Intel Core i3-1115G4

AMD A6-5200

VS

Intel Celeron J3060

Intel Core i3-3110m

VS

Intel I7-3612QM

AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD Core i3-3227U

Intel Core i3-3110M

VS

AMD E2-3000M

AMD A6-5200

VS

Intel Core i5-1155g7

I3-311110M 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS i5-2520M

AMD A6-5200

VS

Intel Core i5-1235U

Intel Core i3-3110m

VS

AMD E-240

Intel i3-3110M

9000 VS

AMD Athlon II Price Comparison

User Reviews

Performance

1. CPU Speed ​​

4 x 2GHz

2 x 2.4GHz

CPU Speed ​​indicates how many processing cycles per second a processor can perform, considering all of its cores (processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.

2nd processor thread

More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.

3. turbo clock speed

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

4. Unlocked

✖AMD A6-5200

✖Intel Core i3-3110M

Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and can be easily overclocked for better performance in games and other applications.

5. L2 Cache

More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

6.L3 cache

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

More L3 scratchpad results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

7.L1 cache

More L1 cache results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

8.core L2

0.25MB/core

0.25MB/core

More data can be stored in the L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

9.core L3

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

1.5MB/core

More data can be stored in the L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

Memory

1st RAM speed

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

1600MHz

Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.

2.max memory bandwidth

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

25.6GB/s

This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.

3rd DDR memory version

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

DDR (Double Data Rate Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory) is the most common type of main memory. New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.

4th memory channels

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.

5.max memory

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Maximum amount of memory (RAM).

6.bus baud rate

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device.

7. Supports Memory Error Code

✖AMD A6-5200

✖Intel Core i3-3110M

Memory Error Code can detect and repair data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.

8.eMMC version

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

The newer version of eMMC — built-in flash memory card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.

9.bus frequency

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device

Geotagging

1. PassMark result

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

This test measures processor performance using multithreading.

2nd PassMark result (single)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.

3.Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform test that measures the performance of a multi-core processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

4. Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.

5. Cinebench R20 result (single core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.

6.Geekbench 5 result (single core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform test that measures the single-core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

7. Blender test result (bmw27)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

Blender benchmark (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.

8.Blender result (classroom)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.

9.performance per watt

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

This means that the processor is more efficient, resulting in more performance per watt of power used.

Functions

1.uses multithreading

✖AMD A6-5200

✔Intel Core i3-3110M

processor cores into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.

2. Has AES

✔AMD A6-5200

✖Intel Core i3-3110M

AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

3. Has AVX

✔AMD A6-5200

✔Intel Core i3-3110M

AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.

4.Version SSE

SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

5.Has F16C

✔AMD A6-5200

✔Intel Core i3-3110M

F16C is used to speed up tasks such as image contrast adjustment or volume control.

6.bits transmitted at the same time

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.

7. Has MMX

✔AMD A6-5200

✔Intel Core i3-3110M

MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.

8.Has TrustZone

✖AMD A6-5200

✖Intel Core i3-3110M

Technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and streaming video using Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology ).

9.interface width

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD A6-5200)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i3-3110M)

The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means that the processor performs better

Price comparison

Cancel

Which CPU is better?

This page is currently only available in English.

Intel Core i3-2310M or AMD A6-5200 APU

The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.

The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.

Speed ​​in office use

Core i3-2310M

44.7 (+32.4%)

A6-5200 APU

30.2

Performance in everyday work, such as browsers and office programs.

The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

Speed ​​in heavy applications

Core i3-2310M

20.8 (+25%)

A6-5200 APU

15.6

The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values ​​corresponding to the processor.

Speed ​​of numerical operations

Simple household tasks

Core i3-2310M

38.1 (+33.6%)

A6-5200 APU

25.3

Demanding games and tasks

Core i3-2310M

11

A6-5200 APU

11. 1 (+0.9%)

Extreme

Core i3-2310M

2.2

A6-5200 APU

2.2

Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

Data obtained from tests of users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.

Passmark

Intel Core i3-2310M

1177

AMD A6-5200 APU

1645 (+28. 4%)

Data may not be available in existing table .

Basic

Manufacturer Intel AMD
DescriptionInformation about the processor, taken from the official website of the manufacturer. Intel® Core™ i3-2310M Processor (3M Cache, 2.10 GHz)
ArchitectureCode name for the microarchitecture generation. Sandy Bridge
Process The manufacturing process, measured in nanometers. The smaller the technical process, the more perfect the technology, the lower the heat dissipation and power consumption. 32 No data
Release dateMonth and year of the processor’s availability. 09-2016 09-2016
Model Official name. i3-2310M
Cores The number of physical cores. 2 4
ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. 4 4
Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores by the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. Hyper-threading (note that some games may not work well with Hyper-threading, for maximum FPS you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard). Missing
Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. 2.1 GHz 2 GHz
Turbo frequency The maximum frequency of one processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers allow modern processors to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, due to which performance is noticeably increased. It may depend on the nature of the load, the number of loaded cores, temperature and the specified limits. Significantly affects the speed in games and applications that are demanding on the frequency of the CPU. 2. 1 GHz 2 GHz
L3 cache size The third level cache acts as a buffer between the computer’s RAM and the processor’s level 2 cache. Used by all cores, the speed of information processing depends on the volume. 3 No data
Instructions 64-bit
Extended instruction set Allows you to speed up calculations, processing and execution of certain operations. Also, some games require instruction support. AVX
Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard. No No
Bus frequency The speed of communication with the system. 5 GT/s DMI
Number of QPI links
TDPThermal Design Power is an indicator that determines heat dissipation in standard operation. The cooler or water cooling system must be rated for a larger value. Remember that with a factory bus or manual overclocking, TDP increases significantly. 35 No data
Cooling system specifications

Video core

Integrated graphics core Allows you to use your computer without a discrete graphics card. The monitor is connected to the video output on the motherboard. If earlier integrated graphics made it possible to simply work at a computer, today it can replace budget video accelerators and makes it possible to play most games at low settings. Intel® HD Graphics 3000
GPU base clockFrequency in 2D and idle. 650 No data
Max GPU ClockMaximum 3D clock. 1100 No data
Intel® Wireless Display (Intel® WiDi) Supports Wireless Display technology over Wi-Fi 802.11n. Thanks to it, a monitor or TV equipped with the same technology does not require a cable to connect. No data
Supported monitorsThe maximum number of monitors that can be connected to the integrated video core at the same time. 2

RAM

Maximum amount of RAMThe amount of RAM that can be installed on the motherboard with this processor. 16 No data
Supported type of RAM The type of RAM depends on its frequency and timings (speed), availability, price. DDR3 1066/1333
RAM Channels The multi-channel memory architecture increases data transfer speed. On desktop platforms, two-channel, three-channel and four-channel modes are available. 2
RAM bandwidth 21.3 GB/s
ECC memory Support for error-correcting memory that is used in servers. Usually more expensive than usual and requires more expensive server components. However, second-hand server processors, Chinese motherboards and ECC memory sticks, which are sold relatively cheaply in China, have become widespread. No data No data

PCI

PCI-E Computer bus version of PCI Express. The bandwidth and power limit depend on the version. There is backward compatibility. 2 No data
PCI configuration options 1×16, 2×8, 1×8+2×4 1×16, 2×8, 1×8+2×4
Number of PCI lanes 16 1×16, 2×8, 1×8+2×4

Data Security

AES-NI The AES command set extension speeds up applications that use appropriate encryption. No data No data
Intel® Secure Key An RDRAND instruction that allows you to create a high performance random number generator. No data No data

Design

Dimensions No data No data
Supported sockets No data No data
Maximum processors per motherboard No data No data

Which is better

Intel Core i3-2310M

  • On average, gaming performance is 12% better.
  • The speed of work in office applications and browsers is increased by 15%.
  • The base frequency is 0.1 GHz higher.

AMD A6-5200 APU

  • $170 down
  • 2 more physical cores.

How they are similar

  • In complex multi-threaded applications, they are approximately equal.
  • The number of threads is equal.

AMD E1-2100 and A6-5200 APUs

Senior and junior modifications of AMD Kabini in comparison with their predecessors and direct competitors brought something fundamentally new to the market, namely SoC Temash and Kabini. The need for such a step, in general, is long overdue — Zacate and Ontario are rather outdated. No, of course, at first they could more than successfully compete with Intel Atom, but the company «swung» to a completely different level — Celeron and Pentium, and the prices of finished products, respectively, turned out to be very close to laptops / netbooks on these processors . But with such competition, everything immediately went wrong. First, it quickly became clear that the processor performance of the Zacate (i.e. E-series APUs) was lower than even the older Celerons. Secondly, the advantages in the graphical component, which AMD initially actively rested on, also quickly dissipated. More precisely, in 2011 they were still there, but in 2012 Intel transferred CULV processors to the Ivy Bridge architecture, with a significantly “finished” GPU, which in its formal characteristics is no longer inferior to Radeon HD. The attempt to parry the blow with the help of Trinity was only partially successful — desktop APUs and some laptop ones were competitive, but if it was necessary to «pack» this family into TDP, AMD, we repeat, was engaged in cosmetic improvements to Brazos. However, not of their own free will — in fact, the replacement of the platform was expected last year, however, either it itself was not brought to mind due to a lack of resources (which were also required for the development of other products), or problems with the development of the 28 nm process technology prevented, or the management came to the conclusion that “swapping the beds” would not help the cause … In general, the Deccan platform (up to four cores of the Bobcat architecture inherited from Brazos, VLIW4 graphics and a southbridge packed in SoC) was officially canceled in in favor of its successor Kerala, which led to such an unpleasant pause, since this platform (as well as its Samara tablet modification) was scheduled for 2013. Fortunately, this event happened on time, unlike many of the company’s other plans. However, the need to maneuver resources does not lead to good, so we would not be surprised to learn that Kaveri (the heirs of Richland / Trinity) will appear next year, and not this precisely because of the need to release Temash and Kabini on time, but it could be even worse. In any case, the backlog in the most economical and inexpensive segment, which is of interest to many users (if only because «netbook» platforms already cope with many actual «household» loads) was much stronger than in the mass desktop segment, also gradually becoming less and less popular, so we can assume that everything was done more or less on time. And today we will see what exactly has been done.

From Zacate to Kabini in a nutshell

There are a lot of architectural changes in the new APU family, so we hope to provide you with a detailed article on this issue in due course. In the meantime, let’s briefly go over the most interesting points — this will allow you to understand what you can expect from new devices and what you should not.

So, for starters, let’s remember what the APUs were for the Brazos platform (Zacate and Ontario). Despite the fact that AMD has repeatedly claimed that this architecture was developed «from scratch», from a consumer point of view, everything looked a little different: they took the good old Radeon HD 5450, and «hung» a couple of Athlon cores on it (of course, with all the improvements, existing by 2011), along with a PCIe controller. We looked at the result, and… We started cutting and shrinking what is possible and what is not, in order to meet the strict TDP framework using the 40 nm process technology, which was somewhat outdated by that time. In particular, the processors of the K8 family had a dual-channel memory controller, which is even more relevant for APUs — it does not fit in terms of contacts (the microcircuit must be compact) and power consumption: we leave one channel. Ever since K7, the processor cache had a capacity of 128K (64K each for instructions and data) — too many transistors, so we return to the 32/32 scheme as in K6. 256K integrated full-speed L2 appeared in the K6-III, disappeared in the first K7, but later returned to its place, and the capacity per core grew rapidly up to 1 MiB in the older K8 — also a lot and uneconomical: 512K cache memory of the second was left in Bobcat level, but at half the clock frequency. More precisely, twice 512 — by the number of cores: the classic scheme of the first dual-core processors (Athlon 64 X2 and Pentium D) without a shared cache, since L3, of course, could not fit into these «little ones». The 64-bit FPU is also a legacy of K8 — in «adult» processors (starting with K10) it was already 128-bit. The PCIe controller was limited to eight lines, of which four 2.0 could be used to connect discrete GPUs, and another four 1.0 went to create a UMI link to the south bridge. And the graphics core also to a large extent turned out to be a victim of optimizations. Formally, it belonged to the 6000th (and in Brazos 2.0 — to the 7000th) series, but the 3D part contained only two SIMD blocks (80 GPU, due to the architectural features of VLIW5, usually only 4/5 loaded with work), as in the Radeon HD 4450/5450, and not four, which was the minimum for the Radeon HD 64×0. Similarly, they mocked the video decoding unit — although it was officially called UVD3, no one managed to find hardware support for Blu-ray 3D (the main difference between UVD3 and UVD2). In general, in the end we got such an interesting product, which is inferior to Athlon 64 X2 in terms of processor performance (and even Sempron with the same frequency in single-threaded applications) and with graphics slower than the Radeon HD 5450. But it is relatively economical and inexpensive to manufacture , thanks to a crystal area of ​​only 75 mm².

Now let’s move on to Kabini and find that the new APU bears very little resemblance to the old one. Firstly, this is SoC, and the first SoC of this level — Intel in a similar design offers only Atom, and full-fledged Core, despite the use of the 22 nm process technology — only SiP: this also allows you to get by with one device on the board, but more expensive to manufacture. However, CULV-Haswell is more functional in terms of peripherals, but for compact systems, a pair of SATA600 is enough, as well as a dozen USB ports, two of which support USB 3. 0. Well, the possibilities for connecting discrete graphics for these two competitors are generally the same — PCIe 2.0 x4. Although there will probably be fewer people who want to use it together with Kabini than in the days of Brazos — the new video core already contains 128 GPUs of the GCN architecture (and different modifications differ only in clock speed) and a full-featured video decoder. But the most notable changes have occurred in the processor part, since instead of two Bobcat cores, two or even four Jaguar cores are now used, in which the company has returned to its place much of what had previously been «cut» — in particular the 128-bit FPU. And the cache memory was «shoveled» as it should: in fact, Kabini is the first AMD products with a single L2 with a capacity of 1 or 2 MiB, working synchronously with processor cores.

It is worth noting, however, that nothing is given for free — despite the compactness of the Jaguar cores themselves and the use of the 28 nm manufacturing process, the resulting die size of Kabini turned out to be 107 mm², while Brazos fit in 75 mm². However, we recall that this is already an SoC, i.e. unlike competing designs or the company’s earlier products, exactly one chip is required to create a complete platform. Its peripheral capabilities look much more balanced than what was offered within the Brazos. Something unnecessary is discarded: unlike the A50M chipset, Kabini does not contain a network controller (which almost none of the manufacturers used — only 100 Mbps in the presence of penny gigabit microcircuits with a PCIe interface on the market), it is equipped with only two, instead of six SATA600 ports (no comments) and USB 2.0 ports, there are eight, not 14, and a pair of USB 1.1, which AMD persistently “shoved” into many chipsets with worthy better use, has sunk into oblivion. But most APU modifications received a pair of USB 3.0 ports, which is not an overkill in our time. In addition, four PCIe lanes for connecting additional controllers have been upgraded to version 2.0, which can also come in handy. At the same time, the video outputs have also been upgraded: there are still three of them, but a pair of digital ones now supports resolutions up to 4K, and additional transmitters are no longer needed to implement eDP / LVDS. In general, despite the die area somewhere between 116 mm² (Ivy Bridge DC GT2, i.e. Core i3 and higher) and 94 mm² (Celeron/Pentium based on IBDC-GT1), Kabini’s margin of «price strength» is extremely high with normal die yield — Intel processors require a chipset. And the transition to Haswell adds not only performance, but also the area of ​​the main chip with the remaining additional for the implementation of the peripheral component, so the situation will not change: in principle, the older models of the younger APU family leave AMD some freedom in price maneuvering even despite the backlog in the technical process.

And now let’s add a traditional spoon to this barrel of honey, or even rather a bucket of tar — the memory controller remains single-channel! Actually, it seems to us, this is the biggest drawback of Kabini — four processor cores and a good video core (128 GPU is the level of desktop A4; only VLIW4 is also there, not GCN) are forced to be content with a 64-bit bus. And even if the memory frequency was officially increased to 1600 MHz in older models (unofficially — up to 1866 MHz at all), this does not change the situation much: one channel is not enough for a GPU. The performance of the latter as a result turns out to be much lower than it could, as we have already seen. Now it’s time to get acquainted with another APU component and compare it with competitors. 40 nm 28 nm 22 nm 22 nm STD/MAX nucleus, GHz 1.3 1.0

903 903 9,

0 1.5 1,8 NOCE NADS/Calculation flows 2/2 2/2 2/2 4/4 /4 L1 cache (total), I/D, KB 64/64 64/64 64/64

And two Intel models — the long-tested Core i3-3217U (which is designed to compete with this A6-5200 family) and the cheaper Celeron 1007U. Note that the difference between them is much smaller than between the A6-5200 and E1-2100, which is logical — Intel also has Atom, with which E1 intersects in positioning. But E2, according to AMD’s plan, should compete with Celeron. But let’s see how successful at least the A6-5200 is, since last time we have already established that the GPU performance of the latter is not going smoothly. Celeron has a graphics part, albeit a weak one, but there is support for dual-channel memory, which may well affect. Note, by the way, that it took some time to get it to work with DDR3-1600 either (it seems that selectivity to memory modules is a common misfortune for mini-boards), but we succeeded. So the memory bandwidth turned out to be higher than even the Core i3 — when testing it, we were limited by the available SO-DIMM modules. And another important factor is different versions of video drivers: 9.17.10.2932 and 6.16.00.3112, respectively. As will be shown below, the differences between them are very noticeable — Intel programmers have accomplished another feat (the previous one was in the winter and belonged to professional software), radically increasing performance in the minimum graphics load mode. True, there was a feeling that the quality of the picture had also decreased somewhat, although it is difficult to answer this question precisely — it is already there, so the only question is: is it possible to play at least somehow or not at all?

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a number of groups and show the average result for a group of tests/applications on the diagrams (you can read the full testing methodology in detail in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points, 100 points is the performance of the iXBT.com reference test system of the 2011 model for testing microsystems. It is based on the AMD E-350 processor using the integrated video core. The amount of memory for all systems is 4 GB. Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are shown both in converted points and in «natural» form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

Celeron, for obvious reasons, lags behind Core i3 — lower clock speed and cache memory capacity, but radically outperforms any APU in its «own» segment. Alas, AMD managed to increase the performance per thread by only about 20%, and this applies only to the older model, since the frequency of processor cores in it is higher than it was possible to achieve from Brazos. The younger one “hangs” at the same level as the old Cs, surpassing them, however, in compactness and economy.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

There are only two «real» quad-core processors in this class — A6-5200 and its slightly slower relative A4-5400, so there is nothing surprising in the fact that the first of them is capable of overtaking and junior Core i3 U-series. It is clear that this is not a record, since even the younger Core i7 is one and a half times faster, but they are also more expensive. And against the backdrop of the defeat of the E2-1800 by Celeron, this is an absolute achievement. True, it was achieved with the help of four cores with a rather high clock frequency, so the new E2s will be much more modest, but there is also architectural progress. And it is clearly visible if you compare the E1-2100 with the S-60 — almost 15%: only slightly less than the growth of Haswell over Ivy Bridge.

Packing and unpacking

And here the E1-2100 didn’t even reach the S-60, and you can’t write off anything about «turbocharging» here — the maximum loss is not at all in single-threaded subtests (of which there are two out of four). But the A6-5200 turned out to be good, coming in second place. If it had a dual-channel memory controller (which is important for these programs), it could have won. And in newer versions of WinRar, where the issue of multithreading support has moved forward, its performance will be higher.

Audio encoding

Here again the first place, and by a wide margin from the pursuers. Which is easily explained — the performance of the memory system is not important here, and when running four identical code streams, two cores with Hyper-Threading are by no means a competitor to four «real» ones.

Compiling

But when it’s the other way around (if the code is different, but the bandwidth is important), then everything returns to normal: it’s impossible to catch up with Core i3 (even the weakest and already obsolete). On the other hand, this is still a huge breakthrough — the best that AMD offered in this segment earlier and could no longer compete with Celeron. And not necessarily with the modern one — the older Brazos models barely “crawled” only to the level of the Celeron SU2300 four years ago. Well, modern Celeron models, of course, are one and a half or more times faster with all the consequences, but they still have one and a half to go before the A6-5200. E1-2100, on the contrary, once again disappointed us — with such a load, it should be faster than the S-60. Moreover, it has not only processor cores faster, but also cache memory, and the operating frequency is higher. It is possible, of course, that a particular product has some features (and this happens — we have already seen how you can slow down the S-70), but so far we have no standards for comparison. And look for other products on this APU in general on the market 🙂 Therefore, we simply state the fact that the youngest model in the line will not necessarily outperform Ontario in terms of performance, which every buyer needs to be prepared for. On the other hand, those who really care about performance, as it seems to us, do not pay attention to this segment.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

What has already become familiar, «low-threaded» software consistently brings Intel processors to the forefront. Specifically, in this group, they were once hindered by the «curvature» of video drivers, but it was fixed at the beginning of the year — now nothing interferes. As a result, only Pentium and above can compete with Celeron in this class, but not AMD APUs. On the other hand, if the best representatives of the Brazos family lagged behind Celeron by half, and Kabini — only by a third, there is already something to be glad about: at least they can be compared, and not as before 🙂

Raster graphics

And this is a more mixed group in terms of the nature of the load, so here the A6-5200 can sometimes take advantage of its advantage in the number of cores, at least overtaking the Celeron. Again, this is a lot, since the E2-1800 lagged behind it by almost half.

Vector graphics

As for these programs, the situation is twofold: after all, the new Celerons are faster, but compared to Zacate, they are a huge step forward. Moreover, we note, almost from scratch — two cores are more than enough. Those. Other advantages of the new architecture “shot” — first of all, fast and unified L2, which makes Kabini related to Core 2, and it is for this that vector graphics programs are still optimized in the first place. And that is why the E2-1800 is slower here than even the Celeron SU2000/U3000 of many years ago, but the A6-5200 is already faster than many Sandy Bridge CULV processors. But, of course, not Ivy Bridge, where higher clock speeds were added to the architecture improvements.

Video encoding

Alas, even four high-frequency cores did not allow the A6-5200 to come out on top — any ivik Core i3 is faster. On the other hand, the «sandic» at 1. 6 GHz worked slower, and there’s nothing to say about a threefold (!) advantage over Brazos. From a practical point of view, we can state a qualitative rather than a quantitative difference — the old AMD platform did not even allow you to think about such tasks, but on the new one you can solve them. Not too fast, but possible. There was a time, and «adult» laptops worked much slower. And not so prehistoric — any notebook Core 2 Duo will do, but devices based on them are still on sale.

Office software

Again, progress is noticeable, although it was not possible to catch up with competitors: neither formal (which AMD considers Core i3), nor real (we are more and more inclined to think that these are mostly Celeron or Pentium as a maximum) . But the difference with the latter will be hardly noticeable in most cases, unlike Brazos, which could only be used as a punishment 🙂

Java

Almost the first place. You can even say that it is here the first one for two. In general, AMD’s decision to distance the A6-5200 and A4-5000 (currently the only quad-core Kabini) from the various E1/E2 is correct — these are products of different levels. Moreover, a comparison of the results of E1-2100 and C-60 shows that one should not expect too much from the new processor architecture, so, again, the fact that dual-core Kabinis belong to the indicated lines is also true.

Games

Graphics are what radically distinguishes the E1-2100 from the developments of the previous generation: despite the initially «crushed» performance characteristics, it still keeps at the level of the older representatives of Brazos. And the A6-5200, as we have already found out in a special detailed study, strongly interferes with the single-channel mode of memory operation. However, we also found out in it that such settings are still too heavy for processors of this segment, so the results of their use are only theoretical.

Games: low quality

But in a more practically significant mode, the situation changes — the A6-5200 becomes the best among all, but the E1-2100 quickly «falls» into place. However, this is not news to us. What’s new is the results of Celeron, which managed to overtake the Core i3! We are inclined to «thank» the company’s programmers for such a sudden success — the drivers are different, and the 1007U was tested with a noticeably more recent one. On the other hand, in the maximum load mode of the video part, this somehow did not help him, so another explanation is possible — the GPU consumption puts a lot of pressure on the processor component. And although the load on the graphics core in this group is not the maximum, however, 16 pipelines when trying to use them (and the processor “does not know” that some of them could be turned off) consume more energy than 6. So much more that the frequency of the processor cores even has to decrease below par, which gives odds to Celeron. Whether this is true or not, further research will show. At the moment, it is more important for us that this happens. And more importantly, in such cases, the A6-5200 fully justifies its positioning: it really works at the Core i3 level. And although neither one nor the other is, strictly speaking, unsuitable for a gaming laptop, it will be possible to play a little on AMD APUs with a little more success.

Multitasking environment

As a rule, we do not use the results of this experimental test for processors of the lower performance segment (and in general we do not «run» it on the latter), but today we decided to make an exception to this rule. If only because, as has been shown above more than once, the A6-5200 is fundamentally different from the previous generation surrogates, so it can also be used in highly loaded (relatively) systems. Recall what the test is: five benchmarks are launched almost simultaneously (with a pause of 15 seconds), while all tasks are assigned a “background” status (no window is active). The result is the geometric mean of the execution times of all tests, which we present in the diagram “in pure form” (since there is no base for normalization), i.e. in this case, the smaller result is better.

So what are we seeing? Obviously, it’s not worth loading surrogates with a TDP of 9 W (E1-2100 or C-series) like that — you can not wait for the results 🙂 More than three hours of average test execution time speaks for itself. “Full-fledged” representatives of the Brazos and Kabini families (dual-core models) are about one and a half times faster, which, however, does not change things too much. And even an hour of time is a lot, so if a “heavy” load is relevant, you shouldn’t overdo it with economy: it’s better to “look” towards Core i5 / i7, which reduce the time to 20-30 minutes. But, in principle, both the CULV modifications of the i3 and the quad-core Kabini are capable of demonstrating results at the level of the Core 2 Duo E6600 or Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which is generally not bad for low-power processors. Not ideal, since the mentioned models are only dual-core and very old, but once they were, as it were, not the fastest among the mass ones (and then — relatively mass: the E6600 at the start of sales was more expensive than the current Core i7) 🙂 Also this is the level of «35 W Celeron «(mobile and desktop economical), and the more «squeezed» line of the latter is even slower.

In general, as expected, four cores with a really multi-threaded load can achieve good results. But, of course, they are not some kind of panacea — the Small Cores architecture itself is rather weak. Economical, technologically advanced and all that, but not very productive. As a result, it is able to compete either with old or with low-frequency modern, but in both cases dual-core Intel processors. Yes, and with «their» too — the single-module A6-5400K and the dual-core A4-3400 are faster than the quad-core A6-5200 in this test.

OpenCL

We decided to experiment with such a load, since AMD makes such a clear emphasis on heterogeneous computing that it even came up with a special name for its processors the same level — starting with Ivy Bridge, OpenCL code is also executed on graphics cores. True, we had some hitch with the participants — we did not test most of today’s main heroes with the help of Basemark CL. Well, let’s give the results of those who were tested, and for the sake of heightening the effect, let’s add to the diagram what the «adult» models of both AMD and Intel achieve.

So, as you can see, OpenCL is not a panacea: slow processors remain slow, and fast processors remain fast: even the Core i7-3770K is three to four times faster than the budget ULV processors from both companies, and this is far from the limit of what is possible. Especially for a desktop system, where OCL code can be executed by a discrete GPU (or even more than one): as our recent study showed, a system with a Radeon HD 7970 in this test scores almost 350 points. This method of improving performance in compact systems, of course, is not available.

On the other hand, programmers should not ignore OCL either — Core i7-990X (of course, the processor is old, but powerful — six cores with a frequency above 3 GHz, capable of performing 12 computation threads) «alone» (without support from the GPU) has a score of 19 points, which was also shown by the mentioned study. Our low-power heroes… In general, they are slower, of course, but the “welding” from GPUs allows them to cope with such code not too slowly. Even the E1-2100 «filled» 11 points — almost half as much as the i7-990X, but there is no point in directly comparing the processor component of these devices! Neither in terms of computing power, nor in terms of dissipated power, these are two worlds that do not intersect at all. However, GPGPU allows them to differ in some classes of problems only quantitatively, but not qualitatively.

As for the head-on collision of «classmates», the A6-5200, to be honest, disappointed us a little — yes, it is faster than the Celeron 1007U, but only a little faster. Something was “eaten” by faster processor cores (albeit in a smaller amount), something needs to be attributed to the effect of memory (and Basemark CL is not indifferent to RAM, as we have already seen on the example of the A10-6800K), but the final result. And it is what it is — even the A6-5200 at such a load is equivalent only to Celeron. It makes no sense to compare with Core i3 — there are NT, and, more importantly, there are three times as many GPUs.

It is clear that one test is not the ultimate truth. Moreover, there are some oddities in its behavior — it obviously does not tolerate NVIDIA GPUs, so optimizations for different architectures are clearly different. However, in our defense, we note that earlier Basemark CL was included in the list of applications that AMD itself recommended using when testing processors. For obvious reasons: in the days of Sandy Bridge (whose IGP could not execute OCL code), the difference between AMD APUs and Intel processors was radical. And after the advent of Ivy Bridge and Haswell, the picture became diametrically opposite — it’s funny to see how 26 (2 central and 24 graphics) «solvers» of Intel in a massively parallel code demonstrate the same level of performance as 132 (4 + 128) colleagues from AMD 🙂 In general, apparently, soon the attitude of the last company to this benchmark will also change to the opposite.

Total

One (quite evil) saying is common among the military: Generals are always preparing for the last war . Over the past few years, there has been a feeling that these same generals have “entrenched themselves” in the AMD management: this is not the first time we have come across excellent (we will not be afraid of this word — in terms of technical originality, the development of this company is very often more interesting than that of competitors) products, who … are late for the market for a year or two. In fact — what would happen if the same A6-5200 appeared during the reign of Sandy Bridge? There would be a sensation — this processor is really capable of competing with the Core i3 (then), and not only with low-power modifications: let the processor component of the «regular» models be more powerful, but the heat pack is higher, and the graphics are much weaker (both in performance and functionality) . But there is no convincing victory (and indeed victory) over Ivy Bridge, although Kabini entered the market at the same time as Haswell. As a result, the new Core i3 already match the A4-5000 in terms of heat pack, and surpass the A6-5200 in terms of performance — after all, the latter, as we see, is at best comparable to last year’s Core i3 (and at worst, it lags behind the Celeron of that time). A similar remark applies to Temash, since the performance of some representatives of this family is predictable — the performance characteristics of the A4-1250 and the E1-2100 tested today are identical in everything except TDP: this is an excellent competitor to Clover Trail, but Bay Trail is already moving forward. And it’s really moving forward — product announcements are multiplying like coffins after chief . And how did the major manufacturers react to Kabini and Temash? In a somewhat strange way — on the first one, for some reason, they release “full-sized” laptops (weighing 2.5 kg), and the second one is used not in tablets, but in compact laptops, where A4-5000 would look good, but certainly not A4 -1200.

In general, one can only hope that as the production of APUs of these lines increases, the range of end products using them will expand «in the right direction.» There are only fears that there is not too much time for this — you can reach Broadwell with all the consequences. But let’s not talk about the sore now. Especially not related to technical issues. On the other hand, everything is still good. Not as good as it could be if processors appeared last year, but so far not bad. In any case, representatives of the Kabini line can compete with Celeron and Pentium, unlike Brazos, which is incapable of even that. It is clear that AMD, as usual, overestimated its development, «swinging» at the Core i3 level, but sometimes the same A6-5200 is capable of this — the main thing is that everything is fine with the prices and characteristics of the same laptops. And the extra freedom of choice has never hurt buyers. In any case, those who know how to use it 🙂 960XRyzen 9 3950XRyzen 9 3900XTRyzen 9 3900XRyzen 7 3800XTRyzen 7 3800XRyzen 7 3700XRyzen 5 3600XTRyzen 5 3600XRyzen 5 3600Ryzen 5 3400GRyzen 3 3300XRyzen 3 3200GRyzen 3 3100Athlon 3000GRyzen 7 2700XRyzen 7 2700Ryzen 5 2600XRyzen 5 2600Ryzen 5 2500XRyzen 5 2400GRyzen 5 2400GERyzen 3 2300XRyzen 3 2200GRyzen 3 2200GEAthlon 240GEAthlon 220GEAthlon 200GERyzen 7 1800XRyzen 7 1700XRyzen 7 1700Ryzen 5 1600XRyzen 5 1600 AFRyzen 5 1600Ryzen 5 1500XRyzen 5 1400Ryzen 3 1300XRyzen 3 1200 AFRyzen 3 1200FX-8350FX-8320FX-8150FX-8120FX-8100FX-6350FX-6100FX-4170FX-4100A10-7870KAthlon 5350A10-7850KAthlon X4 860KAthlon X4 760Kathlon X4 750Kathlon X4 740athlon X2 340A10-5800KA10-5700A8-5600KA8-5500A6-5400KA4-5300A8-3850A8-3650A6-3600A6-3500A4-3400A4-3300PHEL0T BEPhenom II X6 1075TPhenom II X6 1065TPhenom II X6 1055TPhenom II X6 1045TPhenom II X6 1035TAthlon II X4 650Athlon II X4 645Athlon II X4 640Athlon II X4 635Athlon II X4 630Athlon II X4 620eAthlon II X4 620Athlon II X4 615eAthlon II X4 615Athlon II X4 610eAthlon II X4 605eAthlon II X4 605Athlon II X4 600eAthlon II X3 460Athlon II X3 455Athlon II X3 450Athlon II X3 445Athlon II X3 440Athlon II X3 435Athlon II X3 425eAthlon II X3 425Athlon II X3 420Athlon II X3 420eAthlon II X3 415eAthlon II X3 410Athlon II X3 405eAthlon II X3 400Athlon II X2 265Athlon II X2 270uAthlon II X2 260Athlon II X2 255Athlon II X2 250eAthlon II X2 250Athlon II X2 245eAthlon II X2 245Athlon II X2 240eAthlon II X2 240Athlon II X2 235eAthlon II X2 220Athlon II X2 215Athlon II X2 210eAthlon II 160uSempron 180Sempron 150Sempron 145Sempron 140Sempron 130Athlon X2 7850Athlon X2 7750Athlon X2 7550Athlon X2 7450Athlon X2 6500 BEPhenom II X4 980 BEPhenom II X4 975 BEPhenom II X4 970 BE (Zosma)Phenom II X4 970 BEPhenom II X4 965 BEPhenom II X4 960T BEPhenom II X4 955 BEPhenom II X4 945Phenom II X4 940Phenom II X4 925Phenom II X4 920Phenom II X4 IIphenom 910 905ePhenom II X4 900ePhenom II X4 850Phenom II X4 840Phenom II X4 840TPhenom II X4 830Phenom II X4 820Phenom II X4 810Phenom II X4 805Phenom II X3 740 BEPhenom II X3 720Phenom II X3 715 BEPhenom II X3 710Phenom II X3 705ePhenom II X3 700ePhenom II X2 570 BEPhenom II X2 565 BEPhenom II X2 560 BEPhenom II X2 555 BEPhenom II X2 550 BEPhenom II X2 550Phenom II X2 545Phenom II X2 521Phenom II X2 511Phenom X4 9950 BEPhenom X4 9850 BEPhenom X4 9850Phenom X4 9750BPhenom X4 9750Phenom X4 9650Phenom X4 9600 Black EditionPhenom X4 9600BPhenom X4 9600Phenom X4 9550Phenom X4 9500Phenom X4 9450ePhenom X4 9350ePhenom X4 9150ePhenom X4 9100ePhenom X3 8850Phenom X3 8750 BEPhenom X3 8750BPhenom X3 8750Phenom X3 8650Phenom X3 8600BPhenom X3 8600Phenom X3 8550Phenom X3 8450ePhenom X3 8450Phenom X3 8400Phenom X3 8250eAthlon X2 BE-2400Athlon X2 BE-2350Athlon X2 BE-2300Athlon 64 FX-74Athlon 64 FX-72Athlon 64 FX-70Athlon 64 FX-62Athlon 64 FX-60Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 6400+ Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor) Athlon 64 X2 5800+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (Brisbane) X2 5400+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 5000+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4850eAthlon 64 X2 4800+ (Bris bane)Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 4600+Athlon 64 X2 4450eAthlon 64 X2 4400+ (Brisbane) Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4050eAthlon 64 X2 4000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Windsor 2MB) Athlon 64 X2 3800+Athlon 64 X2 3600+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 X2 4400+Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester) (Manchester)Athlon 64 LE-1660Athlon 64 LE-1640Athlon 64 LE-1620Athlon 64 LE-1600Athlon 64 4000+Athlon 64 3800+Athlon 64 3500+Athlon 64 3200+Athlon 64 3Athlon 64 FX-557 -55Athlon 64 FX-53Athlon 64 FX-51Athlon 64 4200+Athlon 64 4000+ (San Diego)Athlon 64 4000+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3800+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3800+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3700 +Athlon 64 (Manchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3500+ (San Diego)At hlon 64 3500+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3500+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3700+Athlon 64 3400+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3400+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3200+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3000+ ( Venice) Athlon 64 3000+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 3000+ (Clawhammer) Athlon 64 2800+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 2800+ (Clawhammer) +Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3400+Sempron 3300+Sempron 3100+ (Palermo)Sempron 3100+ (Paris)Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3000+ (Paris)Sempron 2800+Sempron 2600+ (Winchester)Sernpron 2600+ ( Palermo) Sempron 2500+Sempron 3000+Sempron 2800+ (Thorton) )Athlon XP 3200+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 3100+Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB400)Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2900+Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2700+Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2200 + (Thorton)Athlon XP 2200+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2000+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1900+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1900+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1800+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1800+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1700+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1700+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1600+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1600 + (Palomino) Athlon XP 1500+ Athlon 1400 (FSB266) ATHLON 1400 (FSB200) Athlon 1333athlon 1300athlon 1200 (FSB266) Athlon 1200 (FSB200) Ath26 (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon) Athlon 950Athlon 900Athlon 850Athlon 800Athlon 750Athlon 700Duron 1800Duron 1600Duron 1400Duron 1300Duron 1200Duron 1100Duron 1000Duron 950 (Morgan)Duron 950 (Spitfire)Duron 900 (Morgan)Duron 900 (Spitfire)Duron 850Duron 800Duron 750Duron 700Duron 650Duron 600Athlon 1000 (Orion)Athlon 1000 (Thunderbird) Athlon 950 (Pluto) Athlon 900 (Thunderbird) Athlon 850 (Pluto) Athlon 850 (Thundebird) Athlon 800 (Pluto) Athlon 800 (Thunderbird) Athlon 750 (Pluto) Athlon 750 (Thunderbird) Athlon 700 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Argon) Athlon 650 (Thunderbird) Athlon 600 (Pluto) Athlon 600 (Argon) Athlon 550 (Pluto) -2 533 (CXT)K6-2 500 (CXT)K6-2 475 (CXT)K6-2 450 (CXT)K6-2 400 (CXT)K6-2 380 (CXT)K6-2 366 (CXT)K6- 2 350 (CXT)K6-2 350K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300K6-2 266K6 300K6 266K6 233K6 200K6 166K5 PR166K5 PR150K5 PR133K5 PR120K5 PR100K5 PR90K5 PR75IntelPentium Gold G7400Celeron G6900Core i9-11900KCore i9-11900KFCore i9-11900Core i9-11900FCore i9-11900TCore i7-11700KCore i7-11700KFCore i7-11700Core i7-11700FCore i7-11700TCore i5-11600KCore i5-11600KFCore i5-11600Core i5-11600TCore i5-11500Core i5-11500TCore i5-11400Core i5-11400FCore i5-11400TCore i3-10325Core i3-10305Core i3-10305TCore i3-10105Core i3-10105FCore i3-10105TPentium Gold G6605Pentium Gold G6505Pentium Gold G6505TPentium Gold G6405Pentium Gold G6405TCore i9-10900KCore i9-10900KFCore i9-10900Core i9-10900FCore i7-10700KCore i7-10700KFCore i7-10700Core i7-10700FCore i5-10600KCore i5-10600KFCore i5-10600Core i5-10500Core i5-10400Core i5-10400FCore i3-10320Core i3-10300Core i3-10100Pentium Gold G6600Pentium Gold G6500Pentium Gold G6400Celeron G5925Celeron G5920Celeron G5905Celeron G5900Core i9-9900KCore i7-9700KCore i5-9600KCore i7-8700KCore i7-8700Core i5-8600KCore i5-8400Core i3-8350KCore i3-8100Pentium Gold G5400Core i7-7700KCore i7-7700Core i7-7700TCore i5-7600KCore i5- 7600Core i5-7600TCore i5-7500Core i5-7500TCore i5-7400Core i5-7400TCore i3-7350KCore i3-7320Core i3-7300Core i3-7300TCore i3-7100Core i3-7100TCore i7-6950XCore i7-6700KCore i7-6700Core i7-6700TCore i5-6600KCore i5-6600Core i5-6600TCore i5-6500Core i5-6500TCore i5-6400Core i5-6400TCore i3-6300Core i3-6300TCore i3-6100Core i3-6100TCore i7-5960XCore i7-5775CCore i5 -5675CCore i7-4960XCore i7-4930KCore i7-4820KCore i7-4790KCore i5-4690KCore i7-4770KCore i7-4770Core i5-4670KCore i5-4670Core i5-4570Core i7-3970XCore i7-3960XCore i7-3930KCore i7-3820Core i7-2700KCore i7-2600KCore i7-2600Core i7-2600SCore i5-3330Core i5-2500KCore i5-2500Core i5-2500SCore i5-2500TCore i5-2405SCore i5-2400Core i5-2400SCore i5-2390TCore i5-2320Core i5-2310Core i5-2300Core i3-2130Core i3-2125Core i3-2120Core i3-2105Core i3-2100Core i3-2100TPentium G860Pentium G850Pentium G840Pentium G632Pentium G630Pentium G622Pentium G620Celeron G540Celeron G530Celeron G440Core i7-990XCore i7-980Core i7 980XCore i7-975 ExtremeCore i7 970Core i7 965 ExtremeCore i7 960Core i7 950Core i7 940Core i7 930Core i7 920Core i7-880Core i7-875KCore i7-870Core i7-860SCore i7-860Core i5-760Core i5-750SCore i5-750Core i5-680Core i5-670Core i5-661Core i5- 660Core i5-655KCore i5-650Core i3-560Core i3-550Core i3-540Core i3-530Pentium G6960Pentium G6951Pentium G6950Atom D525Atom D510Atom D425Atom D410Atom 330Atom 230Core 2 Extreme QX9775Core 2 Extreme QX9770Core 2 Extreme QX9650Core 2 Quad Q9650Core 2 Quad Q9550sCore 2 Quad Q9550Core 2 Quad Q9505Core 2 Quad Q9450Core 2 Quad Q9400sCore 2 Quad Q9400Core 2 Quad Q9300Core 2 Quad Q8400sCore 2 Quad Q8400Core 2 Quad Q8300Core 2 Quad Q8200sCore 2 Quad Q8200Core 2 Duo E8600Core 2 Duo E8500Core 2 Duo E8400Core 2 Duo E8300Core 2 Duo E8200Core 2 Duo E8190Core 2 Duo E7600Core 2 Duo E7500Core 2 Duo E7400Core 2 Duo E7300Core 2 Duo E7200Core 2 Extreme QX6850Core 2 Extreme OX6800Core 2 Extreme QX6700Core 2 Quad Q6700Core 2 Quad Q6600Core 2 Extreme X6900Core 2 Extreme X6800Core 2 Duo E6850Core 2 Duo E6800Core 2 Duo E6750Core 2 Duo E6700Core 2 Duo E6600Core 2 Duo E6550Core 2 Duo E6540Core 2 Duo E6420Core 2 Duo E6400 (Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6400 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E6320Core 2 Duo E6300 ( Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6300 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E4700Core 2 Duo E4600Core 2 Duo E4500Core 2 Duo E4400Core 2 Duo E4300Pentium Dual-Core E6800Pentium Dual-Core E6700Pentium Dual-Core E6600Pentium Dual-Core E6500Pentium Dual-Core E6300Pentium Dual-Core E5800Pentium Dual-Core E5700Pentium Dual-Core E5500Pentium Dual-Core E5400Pentium Dual-Core E5300Pentium Dual-Core E5200Pentium Dual-Core E2220Pentium Dual-Core E2210Pentium Dual-Core E2200Pentium Dual-Core E2180Pentium Dual-Core E2160Pentium Dual-Core E21 4065 XEPentium D 960Pentium D 955 XEPentium D 950Pentium D 945Pentium D 940Pentium D 935Pentium D 930Pentium D 925Pentium D 920Pentium D 915Pentium D 840 XEPentium D 840Pentium D 830Pentium D 820Pentium D 805Pentium 4 EE 3. 73Pentium 4 EE 3.46Pentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 672Pentium 4 671Pentium 4 670Pentium 4 662Pentium 4 661Pentium 4 660Pentium 4 651Pentium 4 650Pentium 4 641Pentium 4 640Pentium 4 631Pentium 4 630Pentium 4 620Pentium 4 571Pentium 4 570JPentium 4 561Pentium 4 560JPentium 4 560Pentium 4 551Pentium 4 550JPentium 4 550Pentium 4 541Pentium 4 540JPentium 4 540Pentium 4 531Pentium 4 530JPentium 4 530Pentium 4 521Pentium 4 520JPentium 4 520Pentium 4 519KPentium 4 519JPentium 4 517Pentium 4 516Pentium 4 515JPentium 4 515Pentium 4 511Pentium 4 506Pentium 4 505JPentium 4 505Pentium 4 3.8FPentium 4 3.6FPentium 4 3.4FPentium 4 3.2FPentium 4 3.4EPentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 3.4Pentium 4 3.2EPentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 3.2 Pentium 4 3.06Pentium 4 3.0EPentium 4 3.0Pentium 4 2.8EPentium 4 2.8APentium 4 2.8CPentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.67Pentium 4 2.66Pentium 4 2.6CPentium 4 2.6Pentium 4 2.53Pentium 4 2.5Pentium 4 2.4EPentium 4 2.4APentium 4 2.4CPentium 4 2.4BPentium 4 2.4Pentium 4 2.26APentium 4 2. 26Pentium 4 2.2Pentium 4 2.0APentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8 APentium 4 1.8 Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6 APentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 1.3Pentium III-S 1400Pentium III 1400Pentium III 1333Pentium III-S 1266Pentium III 1200Pentium III-S 1133Pentium III 1133APentium III 1000BPentium III 1133Pentium III 1100Pentium III 1000EBPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 900Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550EPentium III 533EBPentium III 500EPentium III 1000BPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600BPentium III 600Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550Pentium III 550EPentium III 533BPentium III 533EBPentium III 500Pentium III 450Pentium II Overdrive 333Pentium II Overdrive 300Pentium II 450Pentium II 400Pentium II 350Pentium II 333Pentium II 300APentium II 300Pentium II 266APentium II 266Pentium II 233Pentium Overdrive MMX 200Pentium Overdrive MMX 180Pentium Overdrive MMX 166Pentium Overdrive MMX 150Pentium Overdrive 166Pentium Overdrive 150Pentium Overdrive 125Pentium Overdrive 133Pentium Overdrive 120Pentium Pro 200MHz (1024 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (512 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (256 KB)Pentium Pro 180MHzPentium Pro 166MHzPentium Pro 150MHzPentium 233 MMXPentium 200 MMXPentium 166 MMXPentium 200Pentium 166Pentium 150Pentium 133Pentium 120Pentium 100Pentium 90Pentium 75Pentium 66Pentium 60Celeron G1101Celeron E3500Celeron E3400Celeron E3300Celeron E3200Celeron E1600Celeron E1500Celeron E1400Celeron E1200Celeron 450Celeron 445Celeron 440Celeron 430Celeron 420Celeron 220Celeron D 365Celeron D 360Celeron D 356Celeron D 352Celeron D 355Celeron D 351Celeron D 350Celeron D 346Celeron D 345JCeleron D 345Celeron D 341Celeron D 340JCeleron D 340Celeron D 336Celeron D 335JCeleron D 335Celeron D 331Celeron D 330JCeleron D 330Celeron D 326Celeron D 325JCeleron D 325Celeron D 320Celeron D 315Celeron D 310Celeron 2. 8Celeron 2.7Celeron 2.6Celeron 2.5Celeron 2.4Celeron 2.3Celeron 2.2Celeron 2.1Celeron 2.0Celeron 1.8Celeron 1.7Celeron 1400Celeron 1300Celeron 1200Celeron 1100ACeleron 1000ACeleron 1100Celeron 1000Celeron 950Celeron 900Celeron 850Celeron 800Celeron 766Celeron 733Celeron 700Celeron 667Celeron 633Celeron 600Celeron 566Celeron 533ACeleron 533Celeron 500Celeron 466Celeron 433 (S370)Celeron 433 (Slot 1)Celeron 400 (S370)Celeron 400 (Slot 1)Celeron 366 (S370)Celeron 366 (Slot 1)Celeron 333 ( S370) Celeron 333 (Slot 1) Celeron 300A (S370) Celeron 300A (SLOT 1) Celeron 300CELERON 266

Go to all processors

Compare

AMDryzen 9 7900xryzen 7 7700xryzen 5 7600xryzen 5 7600xryzen 5 7600xryzen 5 7600xryzen 5 7600xryzen 5 7600xry5950XRyzen 9 5900XRyzen 7 5800X3DRyzen 7 5800XRyzen 7 5700XRyzen 7 5700GRyzen 5 5600XRyzen 5 5600Ryzen 5 5600GRyzen 5 5500Ryzen 7 PRO 4750GRyzen 7 PRO 4750GERyzen 5 PRO 4650GRyzen 5 PRO 4650GERyzen 3 PRO 4350GRyzen 3 PRO 4350GERyzen Threadripper 3960XRyzen 9 3950XRyzen 9 3900XTRyzen 9 3900XRyzen 7 3800XTRyzen 7 3800XRyzen 7 3700XRyzen 5 3600XTRyzen 5 3600XRyzen 5 3600Ryzen 5 3400GRyzen 3 3300XRyzen 3 3200GRyzen 3 3100Athlon 3000GRyzen 7 2700XRyzen 7 2700Ryzen 5 2600XRyzen 5 2600Ryzen 5 2500XRyzen 5 2400GRyzen 5 2400GERyzen 3 2300XRyzen 3 2200GRyzen 3 2200GEAthlon 240GEAthlon 220GEAthlon 200GERyzen 7 1800XRyzen 7 1700XRyzen 7 1700Ryzen 5 1600XRyzen 5 1600 AFRyzen 5 1600Ryzen 5 1500XRyzen 5 1400Ryzen 3 1300XRyzen 3 1200 AFRyzen 3 1200FX-8350FX-8320FX-8150FX-8120FX-8100FX-6350FX-6100FX-4170FX-4100A10-7870KAthlon 5350A10-7850KAthlon X4 860KAthlon X4 760KAthlon X4 750KAthlon X4 740Athlon X2 340A10-5800KA10-5700A8 -5600KA8-5500A6-5400KA4-5300A8-3850A8-3800Athlon II X4 631A6-3650A6-3600A6-3500 A4-3400A4-3300Phenom II X6 1100TPhenom II X6 1090T BEPhenom II X6 1075TPhenom II X6 1065TPhenom II X6 1055TPhenom II X6 1045TPhenom II X6 1035TAthlon II X4 650Athlon II X4 645Athlon II X4 640Athlon II X4 635Athlon II X4 630Athlon II X4 620eAthlon II X4 620Athlon II X4 615eAthlon II X4 615Athlon II X4 610eAthlon II X4 605eAthlon II X4 605Athlon II X4 600eAthlon II X3 460Athlon II X3 455Athlon II X3 450Athlon II X3 445Athlon II X3 440Athlon II X3 435Athlon II X3 425eAthlon II X3 425Athlon II X3 420Athlon II X3 420eAthlon II X3 415eAthlon II X3 410Athlon II X3 405eAthlon II X3 400Athlon II X2 265Athlon II X2 270uAthlon II X2 260Athlon II X2 255Athlon II X2 250eAthlon II X2 250Athlon II X2 245eAthlon II X2 245Athlon II X2 240eAthlon II X2 240Athlon II X2 235eAthlon II X2 220Athlon II X2 215Athlon II X2 210eAthlon II 160uSempron 180Sempron 150Sempron 145Sempron 140Sempron 130Athlon X2 7850Athlon X2 7750Athlon X2 7550Athlon X2 7450Athlon X2 6500 BEPhenom II X4 980 BEPhenom II X4 975 BEPhenom II X4 970 BE (Zosma)Phenom II X4 970 BEPhenom II X4 965 BEPhenom II X4 960T BEPhenom II X4 955 BEPhenom II X4 945Phenom II X4 940Phenom II X4 925Phenom II X4 920Phenom II X4 IIphenom 910 905ePhenom II X4 900ePhenom II X4 850Phenom II X4 840Phenom II X4 840TPhenom II X4 830Phenom II X4 820Phenom II X4 810Phenom II X4 805Phenom II X3 740 BEPhenom II X3 720Phenom II X3 715 BEPhenom II X3 710Phenom II X3 705ePhenom II X3 700ePhenom II X2 570 BEPhenom II X2 565 BEPhenom II X2 560 BEPhenom II X2 555 BEPhenom II X2 550 BEPhenom II X2 550Phenom II X2 545Phenom II X2 521Phenom II X2 511Phenom X4 9950 BEPhenom X4 9850 BEPhenom X4 9850Phenom X4 9750BPhenom X4 9750Phenom X4 9650Phenom X4 9600 Black EditionPhenom X4 9600BPhenom X4 9600Phenom X4 9550Phenom X4 9500Phenom X4 9450ePhenom X4 9350ePhenom X4 9150ePhenom X4 9100ePhenom X3 8850Phenom X3 8750 BEPhenom X3 8750BPhenom X3 8750Phenom X3 8650Phenom X3 8600BPhenom X3 8600Phenom X3 8550Phenom X3 8450ePhenom X3 8450Phenom X3 8400Phenom X3 8250eAthlon X2 BE-2400Athlon X2 BE-2350Athlon X2 BE-2300Athlon 64 FX-74Athlon 64 FX-72Athlon 64 FX-70Athlon 64 FX-62Athlon 64 FX-60Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 6400+ Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor) Athlon 64 X2 5800+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (Brisbane) X2 5400+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 5000+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4850eAthlon 64 X2 4800+ (Bris bane)Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 4600+Athlon 64 X2 4450eAthlon 64 X2 4400+ (Brisbane) Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4050eAthlon 64 X2 4000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Windsor 2MB) Athlon 64 X2 3800+Athlon 64 X2 3600+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 X2 4400+Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester) (Manchester)Athlon 64 LE-1660Athlon 64 LE-1640Athlon 64 LE-1620Athlon 64 LE-1600Athlon 64 4000+Athlon 64 3800+Athlon 64 3500+Athlon 64 3200+Athlon 64 3Athlon 64 FX-557 -55Athlon 64 FX-53Athlon 64 FX-51Athlon 64 4200+Athlon 64 4000+ (San Diego)Athlon 64 4000+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3800+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3800+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3700 +Athlon 64 (Manchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3500+ (San Diego)At hlon 64 3500+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3500+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3700+Athlon 64 3400+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3400+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3200+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3000+ ( Venice) Athlon 64 3000+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 3000+ (Clawhammer) Athlon 64 2800+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 2800+ (Clawhammer) +Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3400+Sempron 3300+Sempron 3100+ (Palermo)Sempron 3100+ (Paris)Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3000+ (Paris)Sempron 2800+Sempron 2600+ (Winchester)Sernpron 2600+ ( Palermo) Sempron 2500+Sempron 3000+Sempron 2800+ (Thorton) )Athlon XP 3200+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 3100+Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB400)Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2900+Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2700+Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2200 + (Thorton)Athlon XP 2200+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2000+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1900+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1900+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1800+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1800+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1700+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1700+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1600+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1600 + (Palomino) Athlon XP 1500+ Athlon 1400 (FSB266) ATHLON 1400 (FSB200) Athlon 1333athlon 1300athlon 1200 (FSB266) Athlon 1200 (FSB200) Ath26 (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon) Athlon 950Athlon 900Athlon 850Athlon 800Athlon 750Athlon 700Duron 1800Duron 1600Duron 1400Duron 1300Duron 1200Duron 1100Duron 1000Duron 950 (Morgan)Duron 950 (Spitfire)Duron 900 (Morgan)Duron 900 (Spitfire)Duron 850Duron 800Duron 750Duron 700Duron 650Duron 600Athlon 1000 (Orion)Athlon 1000 (Thunderbird) Athlon 950 (Pluto) Athlon 900 (Thunderbird) Athlon 850 (Pluto) Athlon 850 (Thundebird) Athlon 800 (Pluto) Athlon 800 (Thunderbird) Athlon 750 (Pluto) Athlon 750 (Thunderbird) Athlon 700 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Argon) Athlon 650 (Thunderbird) Athlon 600 (Pluto) Athlon 600 (Argon) Athlon 550 (Pluto) -2 533 (CXT)K6-2 500 (CXT)K6-2 475 (CXT)K6-2 450 (CXT)K6-2 400 (CXT)K6-2 380 (CXT)K6-2 366 (CXT)K6- 2 350 (CXT)K6-2 350K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300K6-2 266K6 300K6 266K6 233K6 200K6 166K5 PR166K5 PR150K5 PR133K5 PR120K5 PR100K5 PR90K5 PR75IntelPentium Gold G7400Celeron G6900Core i9-11900KCore i9-11900KFCore i9-11900Core i9-11900FCore i9-11900TCore i7-11700KCore i7-11700KFCore i7-11700Core i7-11700FCore i7-11700TCore i5-11600KCore i5-11600KFCore i5-11600Core i5-11600TCore i5-11500Core i5-11500TCore i5-11400Core i5-11400FCore i5-11400TCore i3-10325Core i3-10305Core i3-10305TCore i3-10105Core i3-10105FCore i3-10105TPentium Gold G6605Pentium Gold G6505Pentium Gold G6505TPentium Gold G6405Pentium Gold G6405TCore i9-10900KCore i9-10900KFCore i9-10900Core i9-10900FCore i7-10700KCore i7-10700KFCore i7-10700Core i7-10700FCore i5-10600KCore i5-10600KFCore i5-10600Core i5-10500Core i5-10400Core i5-10400FCore i3-10320Core i3-10300Core i3-10100Pentium Gold G6600Pentium Gold G6500Pentium Gold G6400Celeron G5925Celeron G5920Celeron G5905Celeron G5900Core i9-9900KCore i7-9700KCore i5-9600KCore i7-8700KCore i7-8700Core i5-8600KCore i5-8400Core i3-8350KCore i3-8100Pentium Gold G5400Core i7-7700KCore i7-7700Core i7-7700TCore i5-7600KCore i5- 7600Core i5-7600TCore i5-7500Core i5-7500TCore i5-7400Core i5-7400TCore i3-7350KCore i3-7320Core i3-7300Core i3-7300TCore i3-7100Core i3-7100TCore i7-6950XCore i7-6700KCore i7-6700Core i7-6700TCore i5-6600KCore i5-6600Core i5-6600TCore i5-6500Core i5-6500TCore i5-6400Core i5-6400TCore i3-6300Core i3-6300TCore i3-6100Core i3-6100TCore i7-5960XCore i7-5775CCore i5 -5675CCore i7-4960XCore i7-4930KCore i7-4820KCore i7-4790KCore i5-4690KCore i7-4770KCore i7-4770Core i5-4670KCore i5-4670Core i5-4570Core i7-3970XCore i7-3960XCore i7-3930KCore i7-3820Core i7-2700KCore i7-2600KCore i7-2600Core i7-2600SCore i5-3330Core i5-2500KCore i5-2500Core i5-2500SCore i5-2500TCore i5-2405SCore i5-2400Core i5-2400SCore i5-2390TCore i5-2320Core i5-2310Core i5-2300Core i3-2130Core i3-2125Core i3-2120Core i3-2105Core i3-2100Core i3-2100TPentium G860Pentium G850Pentium G840Pentium G632Pentium G630Pentium G622Pentium G620Celeron G540Celeron G530Celeron G440Core i7-990XCore i7-980Core i7 980XCore i7-975 ExtremeCore i7 970Core i7 965 ExtremeCore i7 960Core i7 950Core i7 940Core i7 930Core i7 920Core i7-880Core i7-875KCore i7-870Core i7-860SCore i7-860Core i5-760Core i5-750SCore i5-750Core i5-680Core i5-670Core i5-661Core i5- 660Core i5-655KCore i5-650Core i3-560Core i3-550Core i3-540Core i3-530Pentium G6960Pentium G6951Pentium G6950Atom D525Atom D510Atom D425Atom D410Atom 330Atom 230Core 2 Extreme QX9775Core 2 Extreme QX9770Core 2 Extreme QX9650Core 2 Quad Q9650Core 2 Quad Q9550sCore 2 Quad Q9550Core 2 Quad Q9505Core 2 Quad Q9450Core 2 Quad Q9400sCore 2 Quad Q9400Core 2 Quad Q9300Core 2 Quad Q8400sCore 2 Quad Q8400Core 2 Quad Q8300Core 2 Quad Q8200sCore 2 Quad Q8200Core 2 Duo E8600Core 2 Duo E8500Core 2 Duo E8400Core 2 Duo E8300Core 2 Duo E8200Core 2 Duo E8190Core 2 Duo E7600Core 2 Duo E7500Core 2 Duo E7400Core 2 Duo E7300Core 2 Duo E7200Core 2 Extreme QX6850Core 2 Extreme OX6800Core 2 Extreme QX6700Core 2 Quad Q6700Core 2 Quad Q6600Core 2 Extreme X6900Core 2 Extreme X6800Core 2 Duo E6850Core 2 Duo E6800Core 2 Duo E6750Core 2 Duo E6700Core 2 Duo E6600Core 2 Duo E6550Core 2 Duo E6540Core 2 Duo E6420Core 2 Duo E6400 (Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6400 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E6320Core 2 Duo E6300 ( Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6300 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E4700Core 2 Duo E4600Core 2 Duo E4500Core 2 Duo E4400Core 2 Duo E4300Pentium Dual-Core E6800Pentium Dual-Core E6700Pentium Dual-Core E6600Pentium Dual-Core E6500Pentium Dual-Core E6300Pentium Dual-Core E5800Pentium Dual-Core E5700Pentium Dual-Core E5500Pentium Dual-Core E5400Pentium Dual-Core E5300Pentium Dual-Core E5200Pentium Dual-Core E2220Pentium Dual-Core E2210Pentium Dual-Core E2200Pentium Dual-Core E2180Pentium Dual-Core E2160Pentium Dual-Core E21 4065 XEPentium D 960Pentium D 955 XEPentium D 950Pentium D 945Pentium D 940Pentium D 935Pentium D 930Pentium D 925Pentium D 920Pentium D 915Pentium D 840 XEPentium D 840Pentium D 830Pentium D 820Pentium D 805Pentium 4 EE 3. 73Pentium 4 EE 3.46Pentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 672Pentium 4 671Pentium 4 670Pentium 4 662Pentium 4 661Pentium 4 660Pentium 4 651Pentium 4 650Pentium 4 641Pentium 4 640Pentium 4 631Pentium 4 630Pentium 4 620Pentium 4 571Pentium 4 570JPentium 4 561Pentium 4 560JPentium 4 560Pentium 4 551Pentium 4 550JPentium 4 550Pentium 4 541Pentium 4 540JPentium 4 540Pentium 4 531Pentium 4 530JPentium 4 530Pentium 4 521Pentium 4 520JPentium 4 520Pentium 4 519KPentium 4 519JPentium 4 517Pentium 4 516Pentium 4 515JPentium 4 515Pentium 4 511Pentium 4 506Pentium 4 505JPentium 4 505Pentium 4 3.8FPentium 4 3.6FPentium 4 3.4FPentium 4 3.2FPentium 4 3.4EPentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 3.4Pentium 4 3.2EPentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 3.2 Pentium 4 3.06Pentium 4 3.0EPentium 4 3.0Pentium 4 2.8EPentium 4 2.8APentium 4 2.8CPentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.67Pentium 4 2.66Pentium 4 2.6CPentium 4 2.6Pentium 4 2.53Pentium 4 2.5Pentium 4 2.4EPentium 4 2.4APentium 4 2.4CPentium 4 2.4BPentium 4 2.4Pentium 4 2.26APentium 4 2. 26Pentium 4 2.2Pentium 4 2.0APentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8 APentium 4 1.8 Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6 APentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 1.3Pentium III-S 1400Pentium III 1400Pentium III 1333Pentium III-S 1266Pentium III 1200Pentium III-S 1133Pentium III 1133APentium III 1000BPentium III 1133Pentium III 1100Pentium III 1000EBPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 900Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550EPentium III 533EBPentium III 500EPentium III 1000BPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600BPentium III 600Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550Pentium III 550EPentium III 533BPentium III 533EBPentium III 500Pentium III 450Pentium II Overdrive 333Pentium II Overdrive 300Pentium II 450Pentium II 400Pentium II 350Pentium II 333Pentium II 300APentium II 300Pentium II 266APentium II 266Pentium II 233Pentium Overdrive MMX 200Pentium Overdrive MMX 180Pentium Overdrive MMX 166Pentium Overdrive MMX 150Pentium Overdrive 166Pentium Overdrive 150Pentium Overdrive 125Pentium Overdrive 133Pentium Overdrive 120Pentium Pro 200MHz (1024 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (512 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (256 KB)Pentium Pro 180MHzPentium Pro 166MHzPentium Pro 150MHzPentium 233 MMXPentium 200 MMXPentium 166 MMXPentium 200Pentium 166Pentium 150Pentium 133Pentium 120Pentium 100Pentium 90Pentium 75Pentium 66Pentium 60Celeron G1101Celeron E3500Celeron E3400Celeron E3300Celeron E3200Celeron E1600Celeron E1500Celeron E1400Celeron E1200Celeron 450Celeron 445Celeron 440Celeron 430Celeron 420Celeron 220Celeron D 365Celeron D 360Celeron D 356Celeron D 352Celeron D 355Celeron D 351Celeron D 350Celeron D 346Celeron D 345JCeleron D 345Celeron D 341Celeron D 340JCeleron D 340Celeron D 336Celeron D 335JCeleron D 335Celeron D 331Celeron D 330JCeleron D 330Celeron D 326Celeron D 325JCeleron D 325Celeron D 320Celeron D 315Celeron D 310Celeron 2. 8Celeron 2.7Celeron 2.6Celeron 2.5Celeron 2.4Celeron 2.3Celeron 2.2Celeron 2.1Celeron 2.0Celeron 1.8Celeron 1.7Celeron 1400Celeron 1300Celeron 1200Celeron 1100ACeleron 1000ACeleron 1100Celeron 1000Celeron 950Celeron 900Celeron 850Celeron 800Celeron 766Celeron 733Celeron 700Celeron 667Celeron 633Celeron 600Celeron 566Celeron 533ACeleron 533Celeron 500Celeron 466Celeron 433 (S370)Celeron 433 (Slot 1)Celeron 400 (S370)Celeron 400 (Slot 1)Celeron 366 (S370)Celeron 366 (Slot 1)Celeron 333 ( S370)Celeron 333 (Slot 1)Celeron 300A (S370)Celeron 300A (Slot 1)Celeron 300Celeron 266

Up to 10 processors can be selected
at the same time by holding Ctrl

AM5200IAJ44HM A6-5 AMD200 laptop processor Festima.Ru

Almost all necessary chips, microcircuits, processors for laptops are available! Check the availability on the Chipubuk website, by phone or in messages. ❗❗ Repair of laptops, computers, soldering chips, repair of motherboards and other types of work❗ ——————————— —————————— ATI: 216-0833000, 216-0810005, 216-081000, 216-0809000, 216- 0674026, 216-0772000, 216-0774007, 215-0674034, 216-0833002, 215-0752007, 216-0809024, 216-0728014, 216-0810028, 216-0728018, 216-0752001, 216-074999001, 216-0774207, 215-0674030, 216-0729051 Intel: GL82HM170, SR2C4BD82HM76 slj8e, BD82HM77 slj8c, DH82HM86, SR17EBD82HM55 SLGZS, BD82HM65 SLJ4P, GL82HM175 SR30W, BD82HM70 SJTNV, QG82945GSE SLB2R, DH82HM87 SR17D nVidia: G84-53-A2, G86-630-A2, G86-771-A2, N13P-GT-W-A2, MCP75L-B3, G86-603-A2, G86-631-A2, N12P-GS-A1, N15S-GT-B-A2, N16P-GX-A2, MCP79D-B2, MCP79MXT-B3, N11P-GE1-W-A3 128bit, N11P-GE1-W-A3 64bit, N13P-GT-A2, N14M-GL-B-A2 Multis: KB9022Q D IT8586E FXA, IT8528E FXA, IT8586E FXS, KB9012QF A4, IT8528E EXA, IT8528E AXA, IT89, 216-0772003, 216-0728020, 216-0774211, 216-0810001, 216-0729042, AM5000IBJ44HM A4-5000, 215-0674058, AM5200IAJ44HM A6-5200, 215-0674042, 216-0683013, 216-2- 216- 216-27, 216-2- 216- 216- 216-27, 216-2-22- 216- 216- 216-22, 216-22- 216- 216- 216-22, 216-22- 216- 216-22- 216- 216-2A , 216-0707009, 216-0707011, 216BCP4ALA12FG, 216CPIAKA13FG, 216LQA6AVA12FG, 216MCA4ALA12FG, 216MQA6AVA12FG, 216MJBKA15FG, 216PLAKB24FG,  216QMAKA14FG, 216TQA6AVA12FG, 218-0660017, 218-0697014, 218-0697020, 218-0755046, 218-0755097, 218S2EBNA46, 218S4PASA12K , 218S4PASA14G, 216-0841000, 216-0841009, 216DCP5LA11FG, 216-0841027, 216PMAKA12FG, 216MGAKC13FG, 216PBCGA15F, 216PLAKB26FG, 216PVAVA12FG, 216-0842-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 216642-2000, 2166PMAKA13, 218S6ECLA21FG, 218S7EBLA12FG, 216-0683008, 216-0833018, 215-0803043, EM3800IBJ44HM, 215-0804000, 216-0774008, 218-0844012, 216-0674022218-0755042, 216-0752003, AM5100IBJ44HM A4-5100, 218-0755113, 216-0707001, 215-0767003, 215-0757004, 216-0769008, 216-0774006, 216-0833132, 216-0866000, 216-0858030, AT1450IDJ44HM, 216-0868000, 216-08555000, AM445SHE2-2-2-HAEHA A6-455M 216-0856010 215-0804026 216-0841000 216BAAAVA12FG 215-0752016 215-0669061 216-0731004 215-06740322006, 215-0725018, 215RSA4ALA12FG, 218S4RBSA12G, 216Q7CGBGA13, 215RDP6CLA14FG, 215NDA7AKA21FG, VIA CN896, 218-0755042, 216-0846009, 216-0728009, 216MEP6BLA12FG nVidia: N14P-GT-A2, N15V-GM-B-A2, G96- 630-A1, NF-G6150-N-A2, N15S-GT-S-A2, G84-600-A2 128bit, G84-600-A2 64bit, MCP67MV-A2, N11P-GE1-A3 128bit, N11P-GE1-A3 64bit, N14P-GE-OP-A2, N13P-GL-A1, N14P-GV2-S-A1, GF-GO7600T-N-A2, G86-731-A2, GF-GO7600T-H-N-B1, GF-GO7400T- B-N-A3, N15S-GT-B-A2, N12M-GE-S-B1, N12E-GE-A1, MCP79MVL-B2, n13m-ge2-aio-a1, G6100-N-A2, G86-735-A2, G86-635-A2, N14E-GE-A1, G96-605-A1, GT218-300-B1, G96-600-A1, GO5600, N10M-GS2-S-A2, GF-GO6200-N-A2, N10M-GE2-S, GO7900T, GTXHN-A2, G86- 303-A2, Go6400SQ-N-A2G92-270-A2, g73m-U-N-A2, MCP79MZ-B3, N10M-GE-S-A3, G96-650-C1, G98-600-U2G, 96-750-A1, MCP89MZ-A2, N10E-GE-A2, N10P-GE1, N11P-GS-A1, N11M-PT1-S-B1, N11M-GE1-B-A3, N11P-GE-A1, N11P-GV2-A3, N11P- GV2H-A2, N11P-GV2H-A3, N12E-GE-B-A1, N12E-GE2-A1, N12P-GE-A1, N12P-GV-OP-B-A1, N12P-GV-B-A1, n12p- gt-a1, N12P-GV-HL-B-A1, N12P-GT1-A1, n13m-gs-b-a2, n13m-ge1-s-a1, N13P-GL2-A1, N13P-GLR-A1, N13P- GS-A2, N14P-GS-A2, N14P-GT1-A2, N14M-GE-S-A2, N14M-GE-B-A2, N15V-GM-S-A2, GT218-ION-B1, MCP67M-A2, N10M-GS2-B-A2, N10P-GS-A2, N10P-GV1, N10P-GV2-C1, NF-430-N-A3, NF-SPP-100-N-A2, br03-n-a2, GF- FX-GO5700, GF-GO6800-B1, GF-GO7300T-N-A3, GF-GO7300-B-N-A3, GF-GO7400T-N-A3, GF-GO7600T-N-B1, GF-GO7700T-GF-N-B1, Go7900-GSHN-A2, MCP79, MXT-B2, MCP79, MVL-B3G84-601-A2 128bit, G84-602-A2 64bit, G84-603-A2 128bit, G84-603-A2 64bit, G84-625-A2 128bit , dc08+G84-625-A2 64bit, G84-625-A2 128bit, dc14+G84-750-A2 128bit, G84-751-A2 64bit, G84-875-A2, G84-950-A2 128bit, G86-703- A2, G86-741-A2, G92-700-A2, G92-751-B1, G96-630-C1, G98-630-U2, G98-730-U2, N13E-GS1-A1, G86-730-A2, N14P-GE-A2, G92-720-A2, G92-740-A2, G86-741-A2, G92-700-A2, N13P-GSR-A2, G86-751-A2, N14M-GS-S-A1, GO7200T-N-A3, N12P-GVR-OP-B-A1, N13P-GV2-S-A2, GF-FX-GO5700, Go7900T-GSHN-A2, NF-G6100-N-A2, G86-921-A2, N11M-GE1-S-A3 BD82B75 SLJ85, DH82HM87 SR13H, BD82QS77 SLJ8B, BD82HM67 SLJ4N, LE82GM965 SLA5T, BD82HM75 slj8f, AC82GM45 SLB94, AF82801IBM SLB8Q, BD82HM57 SLGZR, FW82801FBM, NH82801GBM SL8YB, NH82801HBM SLA5Q, NH82801HEM SLA5R, QG82915GMS SL8G9, QG82915PM SL8G7, QG82943GML SL9Z9, QG82945PM SL8Z4, RG82852GM SL6ZK, AC82GS45 SLB92. BD82H55 SLGZX, BD82QS57 SLGZV, FW82801EB, QG82945GM SL8Z2, N2920 SR1SF, N455 E52186 SLBX9, AC82GL40 SLB95, BD82H61 SLJ4B, DH82H81 SR177, DH82HM87 QE99ES, LE82GL960 SLA5V, AC82GL40 SLGGM, N3700 SR29E, BD82HM65 SLH9DR, G82855GME SL72L, AM82801IUX SLB8N, AF82801IEM SLB8PGL, 82h210 SR2CA Мульты: IT8885E AXS, W25Q64FWSIQ, NPCE795LA0DX, KB930QF A1, IT8528E EXS, MEC1310-NU, NPCE885LA0DX, KB3930QF A1, NPCE285PA0DX, W25Q64FVSIQ, IT8987E BXA, KB3930QF B1, IT8518E HXA, W25Q64FWSIG, W25Q32BVSIG, NPCE288NA0DX, IT8985E AXA, WPC8763LDG, IT8500E BXA, NPCE985PA0DX, IT8519E HXA, KB3310QF C1, W25Q64FWSIG, KB9016QF A3, WPC8769LDG, KB3926QF D2, NPCE795PA0DX, KB3310QF A0, KB3310QF B0, KB3910SF C1, KB3926QF A1, KBC1098-NU, MEC1300-NU, MEC1308-NU, MEC1609, MEC1619L — AJZP, 25Q16BVSIG, W25Q64BVSIG, WPCE773LAODG, KB3930QF A2, KB3930QF B0, WPCE775LAODG, NPCE781LA0DX, NPCE781EAODX, NPCE783LA0DX, NPCE791LA0DX, NPCE791GA0DX, NPCE791CAODX, NPCE794LA0DX, NPCE795GA0DX, IT8502E JXA, IT8502E KXA, IT8512E JXА, IT8512E JXS, IT8512E NXS, IT8517E CXS, IT8517E HXS, IT8518E CXS, IT8518E HXS, IT8518E CXA, IT8518E DXA, IT8561E HXS, IT8561E HXA, IT8570E AXA, IT8572G, IT8585E CXS, IT8586E CXS, IT8587E EXA, IT8752TE BXA, IT8752TE CXS, IT8770E DXG, IT8772E BXS, IT8772E CXG, IT8772E EXS, NPCE885PA0DX , IT8985E AXA, IT8985E AXS, KB9012QF A1, KB9012QF A2, KB926QF B1, KB926QF C0, KB926QF C1, KB926QF D2, KB926QF E0, KB932QF A0, NPCE985LA0DX, KB9010BF C4, ECE5018-NU, KB3936QF A1, IT8510E EXS, 25X40AVNIG, IT8510E DXS, KBC1070-NU, WPC8769LDG, WPCE773LAODG, WPCE775LAODG, IT8517VG HXO, KB9022Q C, KB9010QF C4, IT8517VG HXS, IT8572G AXS, NPCE985LB1DX, MEC1619L-AJZP, KBC1091-NU, NPCE388NA0DX, IT8585VG FXO, KB9028Q C, IT8519G HXS, IT8987E BXS, IT8580E AXA, IT8528E FXS, KB932BF A0, IT8712F S, IT8502E JXS, W25X40BVIG, W25X40BVSIG, W25X20BVNIG, LGA1151

Computer accessories and components

How to replace the processor e1-2100

SuperPI 1M 63. 0 SuperPI 2M 139.3 SuperPI 32M 3039.6 3DMark06 799 Cinebench R11.5 CPU 0.5
Rating 3Dmark06
431. Intel Pentium M 750 803
432. Intel Celeron M 540 803
433. AMD E1-2100 799
434. AMD Mobile Sempron SI-42 787
435. AMD C-70 782
Rating of all mobile processors

AMD E1-2100 is a dual-core SoC for low-end laptops and compact laptops, which appeared in mid-2013. In addition to the two 1GHz processor cores, the chip also houses an integrated Radeon HD 8210 GPU, a single-channel DDR3L-1333 memory controller, and a Southbridge with support for I/O ports.

Based on the new AMD Jaguar platform, the Kabini architecture for laptops and Temash for tablets are built, which replaced the Bobcat cores (for example, E-350). According to AMD, the manufacturer of new architectures has been increased by about 15%, the SSE instruction sets have also been updated to version 4.2, new ones have appeared — AVX and AES. TSMC’s 28nm process can reduce power consumption and/or increase clock speeds and up to 4 cores (compared to Bobcat).

Due to the low frequency of the cores — only 1 GHz, the performance of the E1-2100 is rather modest, at the level of AMD C-60. For solving simple multimedia and office tasks, the processor power will be enough, but not for more demanding games and applications.

The system-on-a-chip has an integrated Radeon HD 8210 graphics card based on the GCN architecture with 128 shader cores. The video processor operates at 300 MHz, does not support turbo overclocking, and on average, has a performance on par with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), but often the capabilities of the video card can be limited by a weak CPU. Therefore, modern games from 2013 will not be playable, only older and less demanding ones.

The power consumption of the SoC is 9W, so it can power ultraportable notebooks and compact laptops.

Series: AMD E
Code: Kabini
Clock frequency: 1000* MHz
Level 1 cache: 128 Kb
Level 2 cache: 1024 Kb
Number of cores/threads: 2 / 2
Maximum power consumption (TDP): 9W
Process: 28 nm
Optional: SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A), x86-64, AES, AVX, DDR3L-1333
64 Bit: support 64 Bit
Hardware virtualization: VT
Release date: 05/23/2013

* The indicated clock frequencies can be changed by the manufacturer.

For testing, we got boards with two modifications of Kabini — the oldest and the youngest. As you can see, the only thing in common between them is the number of GPUs in the video core, but the frequency of the latter differs by half. The same ratio has the frequency of processor cores, and their number, and the capacity of the cache memory. It’s a pity that the number of memory channels does not differ twice. Only its clock frequency is insignificant, but we did not manage to get 1600 MHz on the ECS KBN-I / 5200, as we already wrote about. Therefore, we tested all four AMD APUs with DDR3-1333. Where is the four from? The E2-1800 was almost the fastest member of the Brazos family (only the E2-2000 is higher, but the difference is only 3% of the clock speed), and the C-60 is the slowest we tested. Although for comparison with the E1-2100, the “starter” S-50, which is closer in terms of performance characteristics, would be more suitable, but we did not test it. And it’s even more interesting anyway — let’s see if architectural improvements can compensate for the lack of Turbo Core support in single-threaded software.

And two Intel models — the long-tested Core i3-3217U (which is designed to compete with this A6-5200 family) and the cheaper Celeron 1007U. Note that the difference between them is much smaller than between the A6-5200 and E1-2100, which is logical — Intel also has Atom, with which E1 intersects in positioning. But E2, according to AMD’s plan, should compete with Celeron. But let’s see how successful at least the A6-5200 is, since last time we have already established that the GPU performance of the latter is not going smoothly. Celeron has a graphics part, albeit a weak one, but there is support for dual-channel memory, which may well affect. Note, by the way, that it took some time to get it to work with DDR3-1600 either (it seems that selectivity to memory modules is a common misfortune for mini-boards), but we succeeded. So the memory bandwidth turned out to be higher than even the Core i3 — when testing it, we were limited by the available SO-DIMM modules. And another important factor is different versions of video drivers: 9. 17.10.2932 and 6.16.00.3112, respectively. As will be shown below, the differences between them are very noticeable — Intel programmers have accomplished another feat (the previous one was in the winter and belonged to professional software), radically increasing performance in the minimum graphics load mode. True, there was a feeling that the quality of the picture had also decreased somewhat, although it is difficult to answer this question precisely — it is already there, so the only question is: is it possible to play at least somehow or not at all?

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a number of groups and show the average result for a group of tests/applications on the diagrams (you can read the full testing methodology in detail in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points, 100 points is the performance of the iXBT.com reference test system of the 2011 model for testing microsystems. It is based on the AMD E-350 processor using the integrated video core. The amount of memory for all systems is 4 GB. Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are shown both in converted points and in «natural» form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

Celeron, for obvious reasons, lags behind Core i3 — lower clock speed and cache memory capacity, but radically outperforms any APU in its «own» segment. Alas, AMD managed to increase the performance per thread by only about 20%, and this applies only to the older model, since the frequency of processor cores in it is higher than it was possible to achieve from Brazos. The younger one “hangs” at the same level as the old Cs, surpassing them, however, in compactness and economy.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

There are only two «real» quad-core processors in this class — A6-5200 and its slightly slower relative A4-5400, so there is nothing surprising in the fact that the first of them is capable of overtaking and junior Core i3 U-series. It is clear that this is not a record, since even the younger Core i7 is one and a half times faster, but they are also more expensive. And against the backdrop of the defeat of the E2-1800 by Celeron, this is an absolute achievement. True, it was achieved with the help of four cores with a rather high clock frequency, so the new E2s will be much more modest, but there is also architectural progress. And it is clearly visible if you compare the E1-2100 with the S-60 — almost 15%: only slightly less than the growth of Haswell over Ivy Bridge.

Packing and unpacking

And here the E1-2100 didn’t even reach the S-60, and you can’t write off anything about «turbocharging» here — the maximum loss is not at all in single-threaded subtests (of which there are two out of four). But the A6-5200 turned out to be good, coming in second place. If it had a dual-channel memory controller (which is important for these programs), it could have won. And in newer versions of WinRar, where the issue of multithreading support has moved forward, its performance will be higher.

Audio encoding

Here again the first place, and by a wide margin from the pursuers. Which is easily explained — the performance of the memory system is not important here, and when running four identical code streams, two cores with Hyper-Threading are by no means a competitor to four «real» ones.

Compiling

But when it’s the other way around (if the code is different, but the bandwidth is important), then everything returns to normal: it’s impossible to catch up with Core i3 (even the weakest and already obsolete). On the other hand, this is still a huge breakthrough — the best that AMD offered in this segment earlier and could no longer compete with Celeron. And not necessarily with the modern one — the older Brazos models barely “crawled” only to the level of the Celeron SU2300 four years ago. Well, modern Celeron models, of course, are one and a half or more times faster with all the consequences, but they still have one and a half to go before the A6-5200. E1-2100, on the contrary, once again disappointed us — with such a load, it should be faster than the S-60. Moreover, it has not only processor cores faster, but also cache memory, and the operating frequency is higher. It is possible, of course, that a particular product has some features (and this happens — we have already seen how you can slow down the S-70), but so far we have no standards for comparison. And look for other products on this APU in general on the market 🙂 Therefore, we simply state the fact that the youngest model in the line will not necessarily outperform Ontario in performance, which every buyer needs to be prepared for. On the other hand, those who really care about performance, as it seems to us, do not pay attention to this segment.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

What has already become familiar, «low-threaded» software consistently brings Intel processors to the forefront. Specifically, in this group, they were once hindered by the «curvature» of video drivers, but it was fixed at the beginning of the year — now nothing interferes. As a result, only Pentium and above can compete with Celeron in this class, but not AMD APUs. On the other hand, if the best representatives of the Brazos family lagged behind the Celeron by half, and Kabini — only by a third, there is already something to be glad about: at least they can be compared, and not as before 🙂

Raster graphics

And this is a more mixed group in terms of the nature of the load, so here the A6-5200 can sometimes take advantage of its advantage in the number of cores, at least overtaking the Celeron. Again, this is a lot, since the E2-1800 lagged behind it by almost half.

Vector graphics

As for these programs, the situation is twofold: after all, the new Celerons are faster, but compared to Zacate, they are a huge step forward. Moreover, we note, almost from scratch — two cores are more than enough. Those. Other advantages of the new architecture “shot” — first of all, fast and unified L2, which makes Kabini related to Core 2, and it is for this that vector graphics programs are still optimized in the first place. And that is why the E2-1800 is slower here than even the Celeron SU2000/U3000 of many years ago, but the A6-5200 is already faster than many Sandy Bridge CULV processors. But, of course, not Ivy Bridge, where higher clock speeds were added to the architecture improvements.

Video encoding

Alas, even four high-frequency cores did not allow the A6-5200 to come out on top — any ivik Core i3 is faster. On the other hand, the «sandic» at 1.6 GHz worked slower, and there’s nothing to say about a threefold (!) advantage over Brazos. From a practical point of view, we can state a qualitative rather than a quantitative difference — the old AMD platform did not even allow you to think about such tasks, but on the new one you can solve them. Not too fast, but possible. There was a time, and «adult» laptops worked much slower. And not so prehistoric — any notebook Core 2 Duo will do, but devices based on them are still on sale.

Office software

Again, progress is noticeable, although it was not possible to catch up with competitors: neither formal (which AMD considers Core i3), nor real (we are more and more inclined to think that these are mostly Celeron or Pentium as a maximum) . But the difference with the latter will be hardly noticeable in most cases, unlike Brazos, where you could only work as a punishment 🙂

Almost the first place. You can even say that it is here the first one for two. In general, AMD’s decision to distance the A6-5200 and A4-5000 (currently the only quad-core Kabini) from the various E1/E2 is correct — these are products of different levels. Moreover, a comparison of the results of E1-2100 and C-60 shows that one should not expect too much from the new processor architecture, so, again, the fact that dual-core Kabinis belong to the indicated lines is also true.

Graphics are what radically distinguishes the E1-2100 from the developments of the previous generation: despite the initially “crushed” performance characteristics, it still keeps at the level of the older representatives of Brazos. And the A6-5200, as we have already found out in a special detailed study, strongly interferes with the single-channel mode of memory operation. However, we also found out in it that such settings are still too heavy for processors of this segment, so the results of their use are only theoretical.

Games: low quality

But in a more practically significant mode, the situation changes — the A6-5200 becomes the best among all, but the E1-2100 quickly «falls» into place. However, this is not news to us. What’s new is the results of Celeron, which managed to overtake the Core i3! We are inclined to «thank» the company’s programmers for such a sudden success — the drivers are different, and the 1007U was tested with a noticeably more recent one. On the other hand, in the maximum load mode of the video part, this somehow did not help him, so another explanation is possible — the GPU consumption puts a lot of pressure on the processor component. And although the load on the graphics core in this group is not the maximum, however, 16 pipelines when trying to use them (and the processor “does not know” that some of them could be turned off) consume more energy than 6. So much more that the frequency of the processor cores even has to decrease below par, which gives odds to Celeron. Whether this is true or not, further research will show. At the moment, it is more important for us that this happens. And more importantly, in such cases, the A6-5200 fully justifies its positioning: it really works at the Core i3 level. And although neither one nor the other is, strictly speaking, unsuitable for a gaming laptop, it will be possible to play a little on AMD APUs with a little more success.

Multitasking environment

As a rule, we do not use the results of this experimental test for processors of the lower performance segment (and in general we do not «run» it on the latter), but today we decided to make an exception to this rule. If only because, as has been shown above more than once, the A6-5200 is fundamentally different from the previous generation surrogates, so it can also be used in highly loaded (relatively) systems. Recall what the test is: five benchmarks are launched almost simultaneously (with a pause of 15 seconds), while all tasks are assigned a “background” status (no window is active). The result is the geometric mean of the execution times of all tests, which we present in the diagram “in pure form” (since there is no base for normalization), i.e. in this case, the smaller result is better.

So what are we seeing? Obviously, it’s not worth loading surrogates with a TDP of 9 W (E1-2100 or C-series) like that — you can not wait for the results 🙂 More than three hours of average test execution time speaks for itself. “Full-fledged” representatives of the Brazos and Kabini families (dual-core models) are about one and a half times faster, which, however, does not change things too much. And even an hour of time is a lot, so if a “heavy” load is relevant, you shouldn’t overdo it with economy: it’s better to “look” towards Core i5 / i7, which reduce the time to 20-30 minutes. But, in principle, both the CULV modifications of the i3 and the quad-core Kabini are capable of demonstrating results at the level of the Core 2 Duo E6600 or Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which is generally not bad for low-power processors. Not ideal, since the mentioned models are only dual-core and very old, but once they were, as it were, not the fastest among the mass ones (and then relatively mass: the E6600 at the start of sales was more expensive than the current Core i7) 🙂 This is also the level of «35 W Celeron» (mobile and desktop economical), and the more «squeezed» line of the latter is even slower.

In general, as expected, four cores with a really multi-threaded load can achieve good results. But, of course, they are not some kind of panacea — the Small Cores architecture itself is rather weak. Economical, technologically advanced and all that, but not very productive. As a result, it is able to compete either with old or with low-frequency modern, but in both cases dual-core Intel processors. Yes, and with «their» too — the single-module A6-5400K and the dual-core A4-3400 are faster than the quad-core A6-5200 in this test.

OpenCL

We decided to experiment with such a load, since AMD makes such a clear emphasis on heterogeneous computing that it even came up with a special name for its processors level — starting with Ivy Bridge, OpenCL code is also executed on graphics cores. True, we had some hitch with the participants — we did not test most of today’s main heroes with the help of Basemark CL. Well, let’s give the results of those who were tested, and for the sake of heightening the effect, let’s add to the diagram what the «adult» models of both AMD and Intel achieve.

So, as you can see, OpenCL is not a panacea: slow processors remain slow, and fast processors remain fast: even the Core i7-3770K is three to four times faster than the budget ULV processors from both companies, and this is far from the limit of what is possible. Especially for a desktop system, where OCL code can be executed by a discrete GPU (or even more than one): as our recent study showed, a system with a Radeon HD 7970 in this test scores almost 350 points. This method of improving performance in compact systems, of course, is not available.

On the other hand, programmers should not ignore OCL either — Core i7-990X (of course, the processor is old, but powerful — six cores with a frequency above 3 GHz, capable of performing 12 computation threads) «alone» (without support from the GPU) has a score of 19 points, which was also shown by the mentioned study. Our low-consuming heroes. In general, it is slower, of course, but the “welding” from GPUs allows them to cope with such code without being too slow. Even the E1-2100 «filled» 11 points — almost half as much as the i7-990X, but there is no point in directly comparing the processor component of these devices! Neither in terms of computing power, nor in terms of dissipated power, these are two worlds that do not intersect at all. However, GPGPU allows them to differ in some classes of problems only quantitatively, but not qualitatively.

As for the head-on collision of «classmates», the A6-5200, to be honest, disappointed us a little — yes, it is faster than the Celeron 1007U, but only a little faster. Something was “eaten” by faster processor cores (albeit in a smaller amount), something needs to be attributed to the effect of memory (and Basemark CL is not indifferent to RAM, as we have already seen on the example of the A10-6800K), but the final result. And it is what it is — even the A6-5200 at such a load is equivalent only to Celeron. It makes no sense to compare with Core i3 — there are NT, and, more importantly, there are three times as many GPUs.

It is clear that one test is not the ultimate truth. Moreover, there are some oddities in its behavior — it obviously does not tolerate NVIDIA GPUs, so optimizations for different architectures are clearly different. However, in our defense, we note that earlier Basemark CL was included in the list of applications that AMD itself recommended using when testing processors. For obvious reasons: in the days of Sandy Bridge (whose IGP could not execute OCL code), the difference between AMD APUs and Intel processors was radical. And after the advent of Ivy Bridge and Haswell, the picture became diametrically opposite — it’s funny to see how 26 (2 central and 24 graphics) «solvers» of Intel in a massively parallel code demonstrate the same level of performance as 132 (4 + 128) colleagues from AMD 🙂 In general, apparently, the attitude of the latter company towards this benchmark will also change to the opposite soon.

Total

One (quite evil) saying is common among the military: Generals are always preparing for the last war . Over the past few years, there has been a feeling that these same generals have “entrenched themselves” in the AMD management: this is not the first time we have come across excellent (we will not be afraid of this word — in terms of technical originality, the development of this company is very often more interesting than that of competitors) products, which. late to the market for a year or two. In fact — what would happen if the same A6-5200 appeared during the reign of Sandy Bridge? There would be a sensation — this processor is really capable of competing with the Core i3 (then), and not only with low-power modifications: let the processor component of the «regular» models be more powerful, but the heat pack is higher, and the graphics are much weaker (both in performance and functionality) . But there is no convincing victory (and indeed victory) over Ivy Bridge, although Kabini entered the market at the same time as Haswell. As a result, the new Core i3 already match the A4-5000 in terms of heat pack, and surpass the A6-5200 in terms of performance — after all, the latter, as we see, is at best comparable to last year’s Core i3 (and at worst, it lags behind the Celeron of that time). A similar remark applies to Temash, since the performance of some representatives of this family is predictable — the performance characteristics of the A4-1250 and the E1-2100 tested today are identical in everything except TDP: this is an excellent competitor to Clover Trail, but Bay Trail is already moving forward. And it’s really moving forward — product announcements are multiplying like coffins after chief . And how did the major manufacturers react to Kabini and Temash? In a somewhat strange way — on the first one, for some reason, they release “full-sized” laptops (weighing 2.5 kg), and the second one is used not in tablets, but in compact laptops, where A4-5000 would look good, but certainly not A4 -1200.

In general, one can only hope that as the production of APUs of these lines increases, the range of end products using them will expand «in the right direction. » There are only fears that there is not too much time for this — you can reach Broadwell with all the consequences. But let’s not talk about the sore now. Especially not related to technical issues. On the other hand, everything is still good. Not as good as it could be if processors appeared last year, but so far not bad. In any case, representatives of the Kabini line can compete with Celeron and Pentium, unlike Brazos, which is incapable of even that. It is clear that AMD, as usual, overestimated its development, «swinging» at the Core i3 level, but sometimes the same A6-5200 is capable of this — the main thing is that everything is fine with the prices and characteristics of the same laptops. And the extra freedom of choice has never hurt buyers. In any case, those who know how to use it 🙂

AMD A4-4300M has socket FS1, or to be more precise, FS1r2.
Must fit processors:
A6-4400M
A8-4500M
A10-4600M.
But the question is whether the laptop BIOS recognizes them or not.

AMD E1-2100 has a BGA769 (FT3) socket. Should fit:
AMD A6-1450
AMD A4-1250
AMD A6-5200
AMD E1-2100

14 years on the site
user #77281

Dear members of the forum! Need your advice.
I have the opportunity to buy a brand new HP Sleekbook 14 in Malaysia for $220. I like this idea, but this laptop is very weak: AMD E1-1200, 2Gb RAM, 320 HDD. An idea arose in the same Malaysia to buy him parts and upgrade.

1. First of all, I want to buy more RAM for him. I immediately thought about two Corsair 4GB DDR3 1600MHZ Notebook SODIMM RAM sticks — CMSO4GX3M1A1600C1 (they will cost me $ 40), but then I realized that the percentage of this laptop, AMD E1-1200, seems to support only 1066 MHz RAM! Is it so? Then what is the best 1066MHz RAM? Is it still possible to install DDR3 1600 MHz with the expectation of a subsequent upgrade of the processor?

2. I want to replace my native HDD with a 128GB SSD. The question is which is the best? I’m looking at OCZ Vertex 4 (I found it for $105), is it a good option? Or better Samsung 840 Pro?

3. Can I change its processor (AMD E1-1200) to a more powerful one — all new AMD from A2-1800 to powerful A10-4600 fit under the FS1 socket. Can I put AMD A10-4600 in it (sweet price in Malaysia — $80)? Or is it better to limit yourself to fellow E2-1800? What is the smartest way to change the processor to minimize heat dissipation? What is the best thermal paste to use?

4. I want to buy Windows 8 for a promotion ($49 for Win8, $74 for Win8 Pro) — does it make sense to overpay for Pro? What will it give me?

What is the best way to change components — RAM, HDD to SDD, CPU? — never did it.
Many thanks in advance to everyone who will help with advice.

Dear friends, good day. I am the owner of an MSI S12 laptop, it has an e1-2100 processor. Is it possible to overclock this ancient one, how will the cooling function in this case (will it be enough). Is it possible to completely replace the processor with any analogue. Is it worth doing this at all? I use office for work, but there are also wild lags.