Compare amd quad core a6 to intel i5: AMD A6-9225 vs Intel Core i5-6300HQ

Intel Core i5-8250U vs AMD A6-9220 vs Intel Core i5-8350U

log 03. 10:32:28

#0 checking url part for id 9206 +0s … 0s

#1 checking url part for id 9326 +0s … 0s

#2 checking url part for id 9214 +0s … 0s

#3 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s … 0s

#4 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Fri, 30 Sep 2022 13:14:19 +0200 +0s … 0.001s

#5 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.007s … 0.007s

#6 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.004s … 0.012s

#7 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.003s … 0.015s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.015s

#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.015s

#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.015s

#11 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.015s

#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.015s

#13 composed specs +0s … 0.015s

#14 did output specs +0s … 0.015s

#15 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.005s … 0.02s

#16 getting avg benchmarks for device 9206 +0.001s … 0.02s

#17 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.003s … 0.023s

#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.024s

#19 got single benchmarks 9206 +0.187s … 0.211s

#20 getting avg benchmarks for device 9326 +0.001s … 0.211s

#21 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.212s

#22 got single benchmarks 9326 +0.008s … 0.22s

#23 getting avg benchmarks for device 9214 +0.001s … 0.221s

#24 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.221s

#25 got single benchmarks 9214 +0.015s … 0.236s

#26 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s … 0.236s

#27 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.236s

#28 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.237s

#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.237s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.238s

#31 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.238s

#32 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.239s

#33 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.239s

#34 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.239s

#35 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.239s

#36 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.239s

#37 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.241s

#38 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.241s

#39 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.241s

#40 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.242s

#41 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.243s

#42 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.243s

#43 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.243s

#44 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.243s

#45 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.243s

#46 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.244s

#47 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.244s

#48 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.245s

#49 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.246s

#50 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.247s

#51 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.247s

#52 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.443s … 0.69s

#53 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.038s … 0.728s

#54 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#55 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#56 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#57 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.728s

#58 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#59 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#60 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#61 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#62 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#63 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#64 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#65 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#66 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#67 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#68 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#69 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#70 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.728s

#71 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#72 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.728s

#73 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#74 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#75 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#76 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.728s

#77 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#78 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#79 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#80 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#81 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#82 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#83 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#84 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#85 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#86 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#87 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.728s

#88 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#89 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#90 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#91 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#92 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#93 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.728s

#94 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#95 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#96 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#97 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#98 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#99 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#100 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#102 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.728s

#103 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.728s

#104 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#106 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#108 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#114 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#115 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.728s

#117 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#118 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#119 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#120 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#121 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#125 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#127 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.728s

#128 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#131 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#134 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.728s

#141 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.729s

#142 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.729s

#143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.729s

#144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.729s

#145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.729s

#146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.729s

#147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.729s

#148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.729s

#149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.729s

#150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.729s

#151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.729s

#152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#156 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.73s

#157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 73s

#160 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.73s

#161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#164 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.73s

#165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#166 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.731s

#167 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#168 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.731s

#169 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#170 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#171 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#172 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.731s

#173 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.731s

#174 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.731s

#175 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#177 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#179 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#180 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#181 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#182 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#183 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#184 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.731s

#185 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#186 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#187 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#188 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.731s

#189 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#190 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#191 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#192 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#193 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#194 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.731s

#195 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.732s

#196 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.732s

#197 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.732s

#198 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.732s

#199 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.733s

#200 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#201 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#202 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.733s

#203 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.733s

#204 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#205 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#206 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#207 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#208 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#209 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#211 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#212 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#213 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.733s

#214 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#215 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#216 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#217 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.733s

#218 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#219 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#220 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#221 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#222 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#223 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#224 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.733s

#225 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.733s

#226 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.733s

#227 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#228 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#229 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#230 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#231 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#232 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.733s

#233 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.733s

#234 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.734s

#235 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.734s

#236 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.734s

#237 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.734s

#238 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.735s

#239 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#240 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#241 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#242 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#243 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#244 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#245 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#246 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.735s

#247 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.735s

#248 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#249 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#250 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#251 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#252 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#253 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#254 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#255 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#256 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#257 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#258 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#259 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#260 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.735s

#261 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#262 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#263 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#264 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#265 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#266 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#267 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.735s

#268 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.735s

#269 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#270 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#271 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.735s

#272 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#273 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#274 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#275 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.735s

#276 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#277 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#278 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#279 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.735s

#280 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.736s

#281 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.736s

#282 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.736s

#283 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.737s

#284 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#285 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#286 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#287 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#288 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#289 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.737s

#290 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#291 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#292 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#293 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#294 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#295 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#296 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#297 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.737s

#298 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#299 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#300 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#301 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.737s

#302 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#303 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#304 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.737s

#305 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.737s

#306 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.737s

#307 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#308 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#309 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#310 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#311 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#312 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#313 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#314 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#315 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#316 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#317 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#318 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.738s

#319 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#320 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#321 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#322 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#323 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#324 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.738s

#325 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.738s

#326 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.739s

#327 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.739s

#328 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.739s

#329 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.739s

#330 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.739s

#331 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.739s

#332 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.739s

#333 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.74s

#334 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.74s

#335 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.74s

#336 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.74s

#337 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.74s

#338 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.74s

#339 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.74s

#340 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.74s

#341 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.74s

#342 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.741s

#343 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#344 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#345 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#346 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.741s

#347 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#348 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#349 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#350 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#351 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#352 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#353 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#354 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.741s

#355 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.741s

#356 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.742s

#357 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#358 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#359 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#360 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.742s

#361 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#362 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#363 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.742s

#364 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#365 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#366 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#367 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#368 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.742s

#369 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.743s

#370 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.744s

#371 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.744s

#372 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.744s

#373 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.744s

#374 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.744s

#375 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.744s

#376 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.744s

#377 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.744s

#378 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.744s

#379 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.744s

#380 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.745s

#381 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.745s

#382 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.745s

#383 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.745s

#384 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.745s

#385 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.745s

#386 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.746s

#387 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.746s

#388 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s .. . 0.747s

#389 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.747s

#390 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.749s

#391 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.749s

#392 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.749s

#393 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.75s

#394 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.75s

#395 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.75s

#396 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.75s

#397 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.75s

#398 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.75s

#399 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.752s

#400 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.752s

#401 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.752s

#402 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 752s

#403 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.752s

#404 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.752s

#405 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.753s

#406 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.753s

#407 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.753s

#408 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.753s

#409 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.754s

#410 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.754s

#411 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.754s

#412 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.755s

#413 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.755s

#414 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.755s

#415 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.755s

#416 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s . .. 0.756s

#417 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.756s

#418 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.756s

#419 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.757s

#420 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.757s

#421 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.757s

#422 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.757s

#423 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.757s

#424 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.757s

#425 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.757s

#426 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.757s

#427 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.059s … 0.816s

#428 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.816s

#429 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.816s

#430 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s .. . 0.816s

#431 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.816s

#432 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.817s

#433 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.818s

#434 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.818s

#435 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.819s

#436 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.819s

#437 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.819s

#438 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.819s

#439 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.819s

#440 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.819s

#441 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.82s

#442 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.82s

#443 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.821s

#444 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.821s

#445 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.821s

#446 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.821s

#447 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.821s

#448 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.822s

#449 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.822s

#450 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.822s

#451 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.824s

#452 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.824s

#453 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.824s

#454 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.824s

#455 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.824s

#456 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.824s

#457 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.824s

#458 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.824s

#459 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.825s

#460 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.826s

#461 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.826s

#462 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.826s

#463 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.826s

#464 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.828s

#465 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#466 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#467 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.828s

#468 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#469 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#470 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#471 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#472 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#473 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.828s

#474 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.828s

#475 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#476 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#477 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.828s

#478 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.829s

#479 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.829s

#480 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.829s

#481 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.829s

#482 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.83s

#483 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.83s

#484 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.83s

#485 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.83s

#486 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.831s

#487 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 831s

#488 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.831s

#489 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.831s

#490 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.831s

#491 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.831s

#492 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.831s

#493 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.831s

#494 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.832s

#495 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.832s

#496 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.833s

#497 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.833s

#498 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.833s

#499 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.833s

#500 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.833s

#501 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.833s

#502 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.833s

#503 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.833s

#504 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.833s

#505 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.833s

#506 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.833s

#507 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.834s

#508 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.834s

#509 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.834s

#510 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.835s

#511 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.835s

#512 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.835s

#513 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.835s

#514 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.835s

#515 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.835s

#516 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.835s

#517 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.835s

#518 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.835s

#519 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.835s

#520 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.835s

#521 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.836s

#522 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.836s

#523 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.836s

#524 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.837s

#525 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.837s

#526 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.837s

#527 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.837s

#528 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.838s

#529 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.839s

#530 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#531 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#532 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#533 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#534 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#535 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#536 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#537 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#538 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#539 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#540 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#541 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#542 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#543 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.839s

#544 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#545 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#546 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#547 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#548 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#549 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#550 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#551 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#552 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#553 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#554 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#555 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#556 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#557 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.839s

#558 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#559 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#560 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#561 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#562 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#563 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#564 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#565 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.839s

#566 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#567 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#568 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#569 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#570 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#571 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.839s

#572 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#573 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#574 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.839s

#575 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#576 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#577 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#578 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#579 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#580 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#581 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#582 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#583 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#584 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.839s

#585 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#586 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#587 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#588 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#589 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#590 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.84s

#591 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#592 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#593 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#594 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#595 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#596 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#597 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#598 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#599 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.84s

#600 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.84s

#601 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#602 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#603 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#604 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#605 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#606 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#607 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#608 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#609 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#610 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#611 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#612 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#613 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#614 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.84s

#615 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.84s

#616 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#617 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#618 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#619 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#620 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#621 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#622 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.84s

#623 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#624 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#625 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.84s

#626 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.84s

#627 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.841s

#628 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.841s

#629 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.841s

#630 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.841s

#631 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.841s

#632 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.841s

#633 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.841s

#634 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.842s

#635 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#636 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#637 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#638 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#639 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#640 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#641 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#642 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#643 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.842s

#644 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 842s

#645 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#646 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#647 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#648 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#649 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#650 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#651 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#652 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#653 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#654 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#655 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#656 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#657 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#658 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.842s

#659 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#660 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#661 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#662 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#663 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.842s

#664 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.842s

#665 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.842s

#666 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.843s

#667 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.843s

#668 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.843s

#669 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.844s

#670 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.844s

#671 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.844s

#672 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#673 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.845s

#674 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#675 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#676 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#677 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#678 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#679 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#680 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#681 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#682 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#683 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#684 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#685 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#686 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#687 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.845s

#688 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#689 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#690 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#691 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#692 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#693 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#694 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#695 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#696 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.845s

#697 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.845s

#698 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.845s

#699 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.845s

#700 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.846s

#701 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 846s

#702 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.847s

#703 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#704 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#705 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#706 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#707 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#708 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#709 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#710 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#711 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#712 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#713 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#714 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#715 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.847s

#716 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#717 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#718 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#719 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#720 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#721 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#722 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#723 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#724 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#725 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#726 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#727 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#728 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#729 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.847s

#730 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#731 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#732 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#733 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#734 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#735 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#736 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#737 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#738 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#739 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.847s

#740 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#741 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#742 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#743 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.847s

#744 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.847s

#745 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.847s

#746 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.848s

#747 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.848s

#748 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.848s

#749 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.849s

#750 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#751 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#752 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#753 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#754 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.849s

#755 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#756 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#757 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#758 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.849s

#759 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#760 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#761 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#762 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#763 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.849s

#764 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#765 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#766 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#767 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#768 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#769 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#770 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#771 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#772 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.85s

#773 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#774 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#775 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#776 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#777 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#778 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#779 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#780 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#781 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#782 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#783 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#784 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#785 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.85s

#786 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#787 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.85s

#788 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#789 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#790 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#791 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#792 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#793 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#794 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#795 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#796 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#797 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#798 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#799 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#800 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#801 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#802 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.85s

#803 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#804 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#805 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#806 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#807 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#808 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#809 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#810 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#811 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#812 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#813 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#814 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.85s

#815 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#816 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#817 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.85s

#818 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#819 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#820 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#821 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.85s

#822 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#823 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#824 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#825 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#826 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#827 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#828 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#829 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#830 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#831 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#832 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.85s

#833 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.85s

#834 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.851s

#835 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.851s

#836 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.851s

#837 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.851s

#838 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.851s

#839 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.851s

#840 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.851s

#841 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.852s

#842 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#843 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#844 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#845 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#846 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.852s

#847 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#848 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#849 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#850 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#851 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#852 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#853 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#854 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#855 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#856 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.852s

#857 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#858 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#859 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#860 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.852s

#861 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#862 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.852s

#863 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#864 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#865 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#866 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#867 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#868 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#869 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#870 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#871 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.853s

#872 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#873 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.853s

#874 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#875 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.853s

#876 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#877 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#878 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#879 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#880 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#881 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#882 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#883 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#884 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#885 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#886 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#887 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#888 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#889 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.853s

#890 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#891 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#892 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#893 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#894 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#895 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#896 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#897 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#898 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#899 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#900 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#901 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#902 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#903 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.853s

#904 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#905 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#906 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#907 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#908 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#909 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#910 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#911 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#912 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#913 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#914 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#915 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.853s

#916 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#917 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.853s

#918 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.853s

#919 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.853s

#920 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#921 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#922 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#923 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.853s

#924 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.854s

#925 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.854s

#926 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.854s

#927 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.854s

#928 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.854s

#929 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.854s

#930 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.854s

#931 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.855s

#932 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.855s

#933 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.855s

#934 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.855s

#935 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.855s

#936 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.855s

#937 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.855s

#938 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.855s

#939 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.855s

#940 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.855s

#941 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#942 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#943 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#944 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#945 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#946 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.856s

#947 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#948 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.856s

#949 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#950 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#951 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#952 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.856s

#953 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#954 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#955 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#956 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#957 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#958 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#959 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.856s

#960 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.859s

#961 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.859s

#962 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.859s

#963 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.859s

#964 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.859s

#965 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.86s

#966 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.86s

#967 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.86s

#968 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.86s

#969 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.86s

#970 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.862s

#971 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.862s

#972 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.864s

#973 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.864s

#974 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.866s

#975 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#976 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.866s

#977 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#978 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#979 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#980 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#981 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.866s

#982 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.866s

#983 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#984 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#985 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#986 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#987 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#988 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#989 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.866s

#990 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#991 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.866s

#992 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#993 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#994 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#995 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#996 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#997 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#998 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.866s

#999 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.867s

#1000 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.867s

#1001 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.867s

#1002 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.867s

#1003 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.868s

#1004 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1005 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.868s

#1006 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1007 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1008 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1009 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1010 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.868s

#1011 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1012 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1013 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1014 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.868s

#1015 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1016 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1017 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1018 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1019 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0. 868s

#1020 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1021 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1022 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1023 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1024 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.868s

#1025 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1026 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1027 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.868s

#1028 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.869s

#1029 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.869s

#1030 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.869s

#1031 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.869s

#1032 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.871s

#1033 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.871s

#1034 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1035 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.871s

#1036 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.871s

#1037 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1038 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1039 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1040 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1041 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1042 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1043 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1044 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1045 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1046 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1047 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.871s

#1048 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1049 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1050 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.871s

#1051 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.872s

#1052 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.872s

#1053 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.874s

#1054 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1055 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1056 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1057 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1058 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.874s

#1059 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1060 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1061 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.874s

#1062 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1063 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1064 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1065 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1066 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1067 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1068 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1069 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1070 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1071 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.874s

#1072 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.875s

#1073 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.875s

#1074 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.875s

#1075 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.876s

#1076 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1077 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1078 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1079 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1080 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1081 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1082 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1083 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1084 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1085 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1086 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.876s

#1087 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.876s

#1088 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.876s

#1089 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.877s

#1090 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.877s

#1091 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.877s

#1092 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.877s

#1093 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.877s

#1094 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.877s

#1095 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.879s

#1096 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1097 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.879s

#1098 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1099 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1100 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1102 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1103 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.879s

#1104 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1106 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1108 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.879s

#1114 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.88s

#1115 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.881s

#1116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.881s

#1117 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.882s

#1118 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.883s

#1119 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.883s

#1120 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.884s

#1121 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.885s

#1122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.886s

#1123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.888s

#1124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.889s

#1125 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.891s

#1126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.892s

#1127 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1128 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1131 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.893s

#1132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1134 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.893s

#1135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1141 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1142 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1145 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.893s

#1146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.893s

#1160 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1164 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1166 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1167 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1168 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1169 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1170 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1171 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1172 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1173 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.893s

#1174 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.893s

#1175 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1177 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1179 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1180 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1181 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1182 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1183 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.893s

#1184 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.894s

#1185 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.894s

#1186 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.894s

#1187 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.894s

#1188 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.894s

#1189 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.894s

#1190 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.896s

#1191 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.896s

#1192 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1193 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1194 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1195 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1196 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1197 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1198 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1199 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1200 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1201 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.896s

#1202 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1203 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1204 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.896s

#1205 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.898s

#1206 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.898s

#1207 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.898s

#1208 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.898s

#1209 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.898s

#1210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.9s

#1211 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1212 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1213 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1214 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1215 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.9s

#1216 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1217 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1218 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1219 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1220 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1221 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1222 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1223 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1224 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1225 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1226 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1227 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.9s

#1228 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1229 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1230 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.9s

#1231 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1232 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1233 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1234 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1235 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1236 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1237 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1238 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1239 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1240 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1241 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1242 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1243 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1244 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1245 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.9s

#1246 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1247 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1248 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1249 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1250 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1251 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1252 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1253 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1254 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1255 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.9s

#1256 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1257 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1258 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1259 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1260 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.9s

#1261 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1262 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1263 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.9s

#1264 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.902s

#1265 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.903s

#1266 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.903s

#1267 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.903s

#1268 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.903s

#1269 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.903s

#1270 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.904s

#1271 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.904s

#1272 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.904s

#1273 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.904s

#1274 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.906s

#1275 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.906s

#1276 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.907s

#1277 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.909s

#1278 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.911s

#1279 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.912s

#1280 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.914s

#1281 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.916s

#1282 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.916s

#1283 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.916s

#1284 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.916s

#1285 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.917s

#1286 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.917s

#1287 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.917s

#1288 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.917s

#1289 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.92s

#1290 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.92s

#1291 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.92s

#1292 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.92s

#1293 min, max, avg, median took s +0.001s … 0.921s

#1294 return log +0.001s … 0.922s

AMD A6-7480 vs Intel Core i5-4570








AMD A6-7480 vs Intel Core i5-4570

Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the AMD A6-7480 on one side and the Intel Core i5-4570 on the other side. The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, It has 1 cores, 2 threads, a maximum frequency of 3,8GHz. The second is used on the desktop segment, it has a total of 4 cores, 4 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 3,6 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

AMD A6-7480

Intel Core i5-4570
Market (main)

Desktop

Desktop
ISA

x86-64 (64 bit)

x86-64 (64 bit)
Microarchitecture

Excavator

Haswell
Core name

Carrizo

Haswell-DT
Family

A6-7000

Core i5-4000
Part number(s), S-Spec

AD7480ACABBOX

BX80646I54570,

BXC80646I54570,

CM8064601464707,

QE70

Release date

Q4 2018

Q2 2013
Lithography

28 nm

22 nm
Transistors

2. 410.000.000

1.400.000.000
Cores

1

4
Threads

2

4
Base frequency

3,5 GHz

3,2 GHz
Turbo frequency

3,8 GHz

3,6 GHz
Cache memory

1 MB

6 MB
Max memory capacity

8 GB

32 GB
Memory types

DDR4-2133

DDR3-1333/1600,

DDR3L-1333/1600

Max # of memory channels

2

2
Max PCIe lanes

8

16
TDP

65 W

84 W
Suggested PSU

600W ATX Power Supply

600W ATX Power Supply
GPU integrated graphics

AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (Wani)

Intel HD Graphics 4600
GPU cores

6


GPU execution units

20
GPU shading units

384

160
GPU base clock

200 MHz

350 MHz
GPU boost clock

900 MHz

1150 MHz
GPU FP32 floating point

691,2 GFLOPS

352 GFLOPS
Socket

FM2+

LGA1150
Compatible motherboard

Socket FM2+ Motherboard 

Socket LGA 1150 Motherboard 
CPU-Z single thread

195

386
CPU-Z multi thread

318

1. 477
PassMark single thread

1.610

2.016
PassMark CPU Mark

1.884

5.144
(Windows 64-bit)
Geekbench 4 single core

2.422

3.910
(Windows 64-bit)
Geekbench 4 multi-core

3.619

11.286
(SGEMM)
GFLOPS performance

41,8 GFLOPS

218,2 GFLOPS
(Multi-core / watt performance)
Performance / watt ratio

56 pts / W

134 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.

Suggested PSU: We assume that we have An ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.

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 Intel Core i5-4570 has a larger number of cores, the maximum frequency of AMD A6-7480 is greater, that the PDT of AMD A6-7480 is lower. The AMD A6-7480 was designed earlier.

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
Intel Core i5-4570

386

1.477
AMD A6-7480

195

318

In single core, the difference is 98%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 364%.

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.





PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread
Intel Core i5-4570

2. 016

5.144
AMD A6-7480

1.610

1.884

In single core, the difference is 25%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 173%.

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 i5-4570

3.910

11. 286
AMD A6-7480

2.422

3.619

In single core, the difference is 61%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 212%.

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.

Equivalence:

AMD A6-7480 Intel equivalentIntel Core i5-4570 AMD equivalent

See also:

Intel Core i5-4570SIntel Core i5-4570T

AMD A6-5200 vs.

Intel Core i5-6500T

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 Core i5-6500T

The Intel Core i5-6500T operates with 4 cores and 4 CPU threads. It run at 3.10 GHz base 2.80 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 35 W.The processor is attached to the LGA 1151 CPU socket. This version includes 6.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR3-1600, DDR4-2133 RAM and features 3.0 PCIe Gen 16 lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Skylake S Architecture is enhanced with 14 nm technology and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d. The product was launched on Q3/2015

AMD A6-5200

Intel Core i5-6500T

Compare Detail

2.80 GHz Frequency 2.50 GHz
4 Cores 4
No turbo Turbo (1 Core) 3.10 GHz
No turbo Turbo (All Cores) 2.80 GHz
No Hyperthreading No
Yes Overclocking No
normal Core Architecture normal

AMD Radeon HD 8400

GPU

Intel HD Graphics 530

No turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.15 GHz
28 nm Technology 14 nm
No turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.15 GHz
11.1 DirectX Version 12
2 Max. displays 3
DDR3L-1600 SO-DIMM Memory DDR3-1600
DDR4-2133
2 Memory channels 2
Max memory
No ECC No
L2 Cache
2. 00 MB L3 Cache 6.00 MB
PCIe version 3.0
PCIe lanes 16
28 nm Technology 14 nm
N/A Socket LGA 1151
25 W TDP 35 W
AMD-V Virtualization VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d
Q3/2013 Release date Q3/2015

Show more data

Show more data

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 Core i5-6500T
25 W Max TDP 35 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

Price, Specs, Ratings, Features and series Comparison

Which laptop is better? Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) or Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop? Well, you’ll get all your questions answered here. Find out which laptop is best for your personal need — You can compare the two models on the basis of their Price in Bangladesh, Body, Display, Performance, Storage, Battery, Ports, and Networking. Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) starts with the price of BDT 112,498 and Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop starts at BDT 99,998.

Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) runs on Windows 10 Home Basic 64-bit and Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop runs on Windows 10 Pro (64-bit). Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) comes up with RAM & storage of 32GB and Intel Core i5 8265U whereas Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop comes up with the RAM & storage of 8 GB and 512 GB respectively. Former has screen size of 14 inches and latter has screen size of 14 Inches. First model runs on Intel Core i5 8265U and second on AMD Octa Core Ryzen. Coming to the battery backup, Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) comes up with the backup of Upto 6 hours and Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop gives 3 Cell Battery.

Check out the exhaustive comparison below to compare specification for both laptop models.

Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) Vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

Specifications Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop
OS Windows 10 Pro (64-bit) Windows 10 Home Basic 64-bit
Screen Size 14 inches 14 Inches
Resolution 1366 x 768 pixels 1920 x 1080 Pixels
Processor Intel Core i5 8265U AMD Octa Core Ryzen
RAM 32 GB DDR4 8 GB DDR4
Battery Backup Upto 6 hours

+ Read More

Compare Models

Hide Common features

Summary
Specs Score 61 77
OS Windows 10 Pro (64-bit) Windows 10 Home Basic 64-bit
Screen Size 14 inches 14 Inches
Resolution 1366 x 768 pixels 1920 x 1080 Pixels
Processor Intel Core i5 8265U AMD Octa Core Ryzen
Solid State Drive 512 GB
RAM 32 GB DDR4 8 GB DDR4
Battery Backup Upto 6 hours
General
Utility Everyday Use
Device Type Netbook
OS Windows 10 Pro (64-bit) Windows 10 Home Basic 64-bit
Warranty 1 year Warranty 1 year Warranty

Similiar Alternatives

  • Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 16GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 101,875

  • Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 1TB 512GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 110,337

  • Latitude 3410 Laptop (10th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 1TB/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 107,800

  • Dell Inspiron 5518 Laptop (11th Gen Core i7/ 16GB/ 1TB SSD/ Win10/ 2GB Graph)

    BDT 122,487

  • HP Elitebook 840 G7 (1C8N0UT) Laptop (10th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 256GB SSD/ Windows 10)

    BDT 118,750

  • Vostro 3500 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 16GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10/ 2GB Graph)

    BDT 101,250

  • Lenovo Legion Y540 (81SY00BPIN) Laptop (9th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10 Home/ 4GB Graph)

    BDT 108,087

  • Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 16GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 104,998

  • Ideapad S540 (81XA002SIN) Laptop (10th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10/ 2GB Graph)

    BDT 107,862

  • Dell Inspiron 5502 Laptop (11th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10/ 2GB Graph)

    BDT 116,875

  • Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 16GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 101,875

  • Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 100,937

  • Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 4GB/ 1TB HDD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 96,873

  • Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5)

    BDT 98,625

  • Latitude 3410 Laptop (10th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 1TB/ Ubuntu)

    BDT 97,162

  • Latitude 3410 Laptop (10th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 1TB/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 107,800

  • Dell G15-5515 Gaming Laptop (Ryzen 5 5600H/ 16GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win11/ 4GB Graph)

    BDT 98,747

  • Asus ZenBook 13 (2020) UX325EA-EG501TS Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 512GB SSD/ Windows 10)

    BDT 93,737

  • VivoBook Gaming (2020) F571LH-AL251T Laptop (10th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10 Home/ 4GB Graph)

    BDT 91,237

  • Vostro 3500 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 16GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10/ 2GB Graph)

    BDT 101,250

Display
Touch No No
Size 14 inches 14 Inches
Resolution 1366 x 768 pixels 1920 x 1080 Pixels
PPI ~ 112 157
Anti Glare Screen Yes Yes
Connectivity
WiFi Yes Yes
Bluetooth Yes v5. 0
USB Ports 2 x USB 3.0 1 x USB 3.0,1 x USB 2.0
HDMI 1 x HDMI Port 1 x HDMI Port
Microphone In Yes Yes
Headphone Jack Yes Yes
Input
Camera Yes Yes
Touchpad Yes Yes
Inbuilt Microphone Yes Built-in Microphone
Optical Drive No No
Performance
Series Core i5
Model 8265U Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop
Processor Intel Core i5 8265U AMD Octa Core Ryzen
Speed 1.6 GHz, Quad Core Turbo Boost Upto 3.9 GHz 1.9 Ghz
Cache 6 MB
Generation 8th Gen
Graphics
Brand Intel Lenovo
GPU Intel Integrated AMD Radeon
Memory
RAM 32 GB DDR4 8 GB DDR4
RAM Bus Speed 2400 MHz 3200 MHz
Maximum RAM Supported Upto 32 GB
RAM Slots 2 1
Hard Disk Capacity 1 TB
Battery
Battery Backup Upto 6 hours
More Features
Sales Package Laptop, Charger, Box Laptop, Battery, AC Adapter, User Guide
Pros and Cons
Pros
  • Popular Windows OS with amazing gaming experience
  • Better Data Transfer from USB 3. 0
  • Dolby Audio
  • Stereo Speakers
Cons
  • DVD Drive not available
  • Won’t be able to connect to external devices
  • can’t connect more external devices because of less usb ports
  • No optical drive

Similar Comparison

  • Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    Dell Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 1TB 512GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 110,337

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs Dell Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 1TB 512GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

  • Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    Asus TUF A15 FA566IC-HN008T Gaming Laptop

    BDT 112,498

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs Asus TUF A15 FA566IC-HN008T Gaming Laptop

  • Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    lenovo thinkbook 13s itl gen 2 20v9a036ih laptop

    BDT 112,498

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs lenovo thinkbook 13s itl gen 2 20v9a036ih laptop

  • Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    Lenovo Yoga 6 13ALC6 82ND00DNIN Laptop

    BDT 111,250

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs Lenovo Yoga 6 13ALC6 82ND00DNIN Laptop

  • Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    HP Pavilion 14-dv2015TU Laptop

    BDT 113,998

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs HP Pavilion 14-dv2015TU Laptop

  • Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    HP Envy x360 13-ay0533AU Laptop

    BDT 115,625

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs HP Envy x360 13-ay0533AU Laptop

  • Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    Lenovo Ideapad 5 15ALC05 82LN00A3IN Laptop

    BDT 116,498

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs Lenovo Ideapad 5 15ALC05 82LN00A3IN Laptop

  • Lenovo Yoga 6 13ARE05 82FN004QIN Laptop (AMD Ryzen 7/ 16GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10 Home)

    BDT 112,498

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    Lenovo Yoga 6 13ARE05 82FN004QIN Laptop (AMD Ryzen 7/ 16GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10 Home) vs Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

  • Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 82HS0092IN Laptop (11th Gen Core i7/ 16GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10 Home)

    BDT 111,250

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 82HS0092IN Laptop (11th Gen Core i7/ 16GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10 Home) vs Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

  • Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 112,498

    Lenovo ThinkBook 13s 20V9A032IH Laptop

    BDT 132,498

    Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs Lenovo ThinkBook 13s 20V9A032IH Laptop

  • Asus TUF F17 FX766HC-HX060T Laptop

    BDT 104,425

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Asus TUF F17 FX766HC-HX060T Laptop vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

  • Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Lenovo Ideapad 5 Pro 14ACN6 82L700D0IN Laptop

    BDT 94,500

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop vs Lenovo Ideapad 5 Pro 14ACN6 82L700D0IN Laptop

  • Asus ROG Strix G15 G512LI-HN091T Laptop (10t Gen Core i5/ 8 GB/ 1 TB SSD/ Windows 10/ 4 GB Graph)

    BDT 99,998

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Asus ROG Strix G15 G512LI-HN091T Laptop (10t Gen Core i5/ 8 GB/ 1 TB SSD/ Windows 10/ 4 GB Graph) vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

  • MSI GF75 Thin 10SCSR-297IN Laptop (10th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10/ 4GB Graph)

    BDT 99,998

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    MSI GF75 Thin 10SCSR-297IN Laptop (10th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10/ 4GB Graph) vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

  • Lenovo Ideapad 7 82A3009RIN Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Lenovo Ideapad 7 82A3009RIN Laptop vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

  • Dell Latitude 3390 Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Dell Latitude 3390 Laptop vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

  • HP Pavilion x360 14-dy0053TU Laptop

    BDT 98,125

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    HP Pavilion x360 14-dy0053TU Laptop vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

  • Acer NITRO AN515-54 (NH. Q5BSI.004) Gaming Laptop (9th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 2TB 256GB SSD/ Win10/ 6GB Graph)

    BDT 99,998

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Acer NITRO AN515-54 (NH.Q5BSI.004) Gaming Laptop (9th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 2TB 256GB SSD/ Win10/ 6GB Graph) vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

  • Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Asus Vivobook Pro 14 OLED M3401QC-KM045TS Gaming Laptop

    BDT 109,987

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop vs Asus Vivobook Pro 14 OLED M3401QC-KM045TS Gaming Laptop

  • MSI GF63 Thin 10SCXR-1617IN Gaming Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

    MSI GF63 Thin 10SCXR-1617IN Gaming Laptop vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

User Reviews

NA out of 5

0 Ratings & 0 Review

Popular Laptop

  • Asus VivoBook 15 (2020) M515DA-EJ301T Laptop (AMD Ryzen 3/ 4GB/ 1TB HDD/ Win 10 Home)

    BDT 37,362

  • Lenovo Ideapad 330 (81D2008WIN) Lpatop (Ryzen 5 Quad Core/ 8GB/ 1TB/ freeDOS)

    BDT 34,846

  • Lenovo IdeaPad D330 Laptop (Intel Celeron N4100/ 4GB/ 128GB SSD/ Win10)

    BDT 37,487

  • HP 245 G7 Laptop (AMD Ryzen 3/ 4GB/ 256GB SSD/ FreeDos)

    BDT 36,237

  • HP 245 G7 (1S3P0PA) Laptop (AMD Ryzen 3/ 4GB/ 1TB HDD/ FreeDos)

    BDT 33,737

  • Dell E7440 Laptop (4th Gen Pentium Dual Core/ 16GB/ 500GB/ Win 8)

    BDT 30,000

  • HP 250 G6 (4QG14PA) Laptop (7th Gen Core i3/ 4GB/ 1TB/ FreeDOS)

    BDT 36,486

  • HP 15-db1069AU (9VJ83PA) Laptop (AMD Ryzen 3/ 4GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 33,237

  • Lenovo V110 (80TCA00PIH) Laptop (7th Gen AMD A6/ 4GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 29,998

  • HP 14q-cs0009TU (5DZ92PA) Laptop (7th Gen Ci3/ 4GB/ 1TB/ FreeDOS)

    BDT 32,221

  • Asus VivoBook 14 (2020) X415JA-EK302TS Laptop (10th Gen Core i3/ 4GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 43,737

  • Dell Inspiron 3511 Laptop (10th Gen Core i3/ 8GB/ 256GB SSD/ Windows 10)

    BDT 46,862

  • Dell Latitude 3410 Laptop (10th Gen Core i3/ 8GB/ 1TB/ FreeDOS)

    BDT 42,625

  • Dell Inspiron 3501 Laptop (10th Gen Core i3/ 4GB/ 1TB/ Win10 Home)

    BDT 46,872

  • Lenovo Ideapad Slim 3i (81WD00JYIN) Laptop (10th Gen Core i3/ 4GB/ 1 TB/ Win10)

    BDT 49,987

  • HP 15s-GR0012AU Laptop (AMD Ryzen 3 3250U/ 8GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10 Home)

    BDT 47,487

  • Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i3/ 4GB/ 1TB/ Ubuntu)

    BDT 41,737

  • HP 250 G7 (2A9A5PA) Laptop (Celeron Dual Core/ 4GB/ 1TB/ Win10)

    BDT 43,623

  • HP 250 G7 (1S5F6PA) Laptop (10th Gen Core i3/ 4GB/ 1TB/ FreeDOS)

    BDT 42,487

  • Dell Vostro 3401 Laptop (10th Gen Core i3/ 8GB/ 1TB/ Win10 Home)

    BDT 46,987

  • Asus VivoBook 15 (2020) M515DA-EJ501T Laptop (AMD Ryzen 5/ 8GB/ 1TB HDD/ Win 10)

    BDT 51,825

  • Asus VivoBook 15 (2020) M515DA-EJ521T Laptop (AMD Ryzen 5/ 4GB/ 256GB SSD/ Win 10)

    BDT 51,875

  • Asus VivoBook 15 (2020) M515DA-EJ511T Laptop (AMD Ryzen 5/ 8GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win 10)

    BDT 55,555

  • Asus VivoBook 14 (2020) X415JA-EK092TS Laptop (10th Gen Core i3/ 8GB/ 1TB 128GB SSD/ Win10)

    BDT 51,237

  • Asus VivoBook 14 (2020) M415DA-EK512TS Laptop (AMD Ryzen 5/ 8GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win 10)

    BDT 57,487

  • Asus VivoBook 14 (2020) X415JA-EK094TS Laptop (10th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 512GB SSD/ Win10)

    BDT 62,242

  • Asus VivoBook 14 (2020) M415DA-EK502TS Laptop (AMD Ryzen 5/ 8GB/ 1TB HHD/ Win 10)

    BDT 51,975

  • Asus VivoBook 14 (2020) X415JA-EK312TS Laptop (10th Gen Core i3/ 4GB/ 256GB SSD/ Win10)

    BDT 59,623

  • Dell Inspiron 3511 Laptop (11th Gen Core i3/ 8GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win11)

    BDT 55,187

  • Dell Inspiron 3511 Laptop (11th Gen Core i3/ 8GB/ 1TB HDD/ Win11)

    BDT 53,075

  • Dell Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 16GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 101,875

  • Dell Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 1TB 512GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 110,337

  • Dell Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 8GB/ 1TB 256GB SSD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 100,937

  • Dell Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5/ 4GB/ 1TB HDD/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 96,873

  • Dell Latitude 3420 Laptop (11th Gen Core i5)

    BDT 98,625

  • Dell Latitude 3410 Laptop (10th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 1TB/ Ubuntu)

    BDT 97,162

  • Dell Latitude 3410 Laptop (10th Gen Core i7/ 8GB/ 1TB/ Win10 Pro)

    BDT 107,800

  • Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

    BDT 99,998

  • Dell Inspiron 5518 Laptop (11th Gen Core i7/ 16GB/ 1TB SSD/ Win10/ 2GB Graph)

    BDT 122,487

  • Dell Alienware M15 Laptop (8th Gen Ci5/ 8GB/ 1TB/ Win10/ 6GB Graph)

    BDT 124,998

Detailed Comparison of Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

Display Comparison: Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) has screen size of 14 inches whereas other comes up with 14 Inches. Screen Resolution and PPI of these Laptops models is 1366 x 768 pixels, ~ 112 and 1920 x 1080 Pixels, ~ 112 respectively.

Performance Comparison: Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) vs Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop

Processor, one of the important feature of the Laptops used in these Laptops are Intel Core i5 8265U and AMD Octa Core Ryzen respectively. Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop (8th Gen Core i5/ 32GB/ 1TB/ Win10) comes up speed of 1.6 GHz, Quad Core Turbo Boost Upto 3.9 GHz and Lenovo Thinkpad E14 (20YES00900) Laptop comes up with 1.9 Ghz.

FAQs

Q. Which laptop is bigger — Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop or Lenovo Thinkpad E14Laptop?

Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop is bigger with 14 inches screen than Lenovo Thinkpad E14Laptop that has 14 Inches screen.

Q. Which laptop has better resolution — Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop or Lenovo Thinkpad E14Laptop?

Lenovo Thinkpad E14Laptop has a better resolution of 1920 x 1080 Pixels than Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop that has a resolution of 1366 x 768 pixels.

Q. What processors do Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop and Lenovo Thinkpad E14Laptop equip?

Lenovo Thinkpad E14Laptop has AMD Octa Core Ryzen processor whereas Dell Latitude 3400 Laptop has
Intel Core i5 8265U
processor.

Popular Laptops Brands

AMD or INTEL — which of the 2 processors is better for a gaming computer?

The eternal struggle between the two most popular processor manufacturers for PCs — AMD and INTEL — makes you wonder which CPU should be chosen in the end. And if for office tasks this does not matter much, then gaming assemblies are another matter. To understand which is better, you need to know how the CPUs of these brands differ. The article is just about that.

Game Processor Features

In order for the processor to run modern games well, it must be able to pump a discrete video card. And for this he needs to be powerful enough and fast. CPU performance is affected by:

  • number of cores;
  • number of threads;
  • clock rates and other factors discussed in this section.

Whether all of them are important for games, we learn from the information below.

Frequency

The higher this value, the faster the CPU. For gaming solutions, a good indicator is from 3 GHz. It is also worth noting that in addition to the initial frequency of the cores in modern processors from both manufacturers, there is also automatic overclocking — maximum speed. AMD calls it Turbo Core, while Intel calls it Turbo Boost.

To the topic: How to choose the right processor for a PC: 5 essential parts frequencies there is not much difference what to choose.

Architecture

Everything is rather banal here. The more modern the processor model, whether it is a device from Intel or AMD, the more games it will pull. In addition, the models of the latest generations of CPUs from both companies are more than enough.

It would be nice to put in a gaming computer: Core i5 (type 7500) or i7 at least the seventh generation or A8, FX, Ryzen versions:

  1. Zen, Zen +;
  2. Vishera;
  3. Raven Ridge (like 2400G) and Pinnacle Ridge.

Read also: 3 best manufacturers of NVidia GeForce GTX 1060 graphics cards + 5 cool models

Cores and threads

A very important thing. A small number of cores can limit the performance of a discrete video adapter so that you can not play safely. No wonder the developers of most modern games indicate that for comfortable gameplay at least at the minimum graphics settings, a quad-core CPU is required. Among such games are the third Witcher and the fifth GTA.

Interesting about GTA V : this game is one of the few that can use all 8 CPU cores. The 4-core version in this case is inferior to the 6-core one by 6.9%, and the eight-core one by 11%.

It is also worth remembering about multithreading. The more threads, the more productive the processor. Fortunately, now this technology is supported by devices from both Intel and AMD.

Tip : For comfortable gameplay, it is better to install a video adapter and CPU that support DirectX 12 in a gaming computer. However, it is worth remembering that if there is no significant difference in the number of cores and threads with DirectX 11, then with the new software it very noticeable: in this case, multithreading and the number of CPU «heads» are very important.

Useful: How to assemble a gaming computer, what components to buy: 3 options to choose from

Cache

Each processor device has a certain amount of cache memory of different levels (up to four). The first and second levels of the cache bus depend on the CPU architecture, but the third level cache can change in different models. The amount of this type of memory affects performance, but not so much that it was noticeable during the gameplay.

Overclockable

Overclocking or overclocking allows you to raise the CPU frequency above the Turbo mark. Such processors are produced by both AMD and INTEL. Of course, this improves the performance of the CPU. Intel «stones», which are equipped with an unlocked multiplier, are marked with the letters K and X in the name, and AMD — X. For example, Ryzen 5 2600X and Core i5-7600K.

Recommendation: If you want to save money, you can ignore the possibility of overclocking. Overclocker versions are much more expensive with equal characteristics. In addition, a gamer will most likely need to buy more powerful cooling.

Integrated video adapter

The video card plays an important role in the configuration of a computer for gaming. After all, the quality of graphics depends on it. The manufacturer Intel always integrates a graphics adapter into the CPU, but with AMD it can be different: integrated graphics are not always available. A discrete video card is needed in any case, but if you want to save money or the user just plans to buy a GPU later, then you should take a closer look at Intel processors: you won’t be able to make a mistake and choose the option without an integrated card.

Find out: North and south bridge on the motherboard: 3 sections about what it is

Comparison of AMD and INTEL

From the previous sections, it can be seen that the differences between the modern models of the two competitors are not so significant. To understand which processor is best for gaming, you should compare them in practice. Below is a table with test results for top CPUs from both manufacturers.

7171
CPU Score 7061 5449 8261 8660
CPU Test 23,73 fps 18,31 fps 27,76 fps 29.1 fps
0130

Total War: Warhammer Full HD 71,7 fps 109,2 fps 75,1 fps 91,2 fps
Total War: Warhammer Ultra HD 46 ,7 fps 47,1 fps 48,84 fps 46,5 fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider Full HD 113,81 fps 111 fps 116,54 fps 135,14 fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider Ultra HD 48,06 fps 45,73 fps 48,92 fps 48,61 fps
Doom Full HD 125,982 fps 109,987 fps 131,184 fps 147,324 fps
Doom Ultra HD 72,846 fps 71,343 fps 74. 765 fps 73.689 fps

tried to assemble computers on Intel, but now everything is a little different. The review and tests showed that the differences between modern CPU models from competing companies are no longer significant. So the best option is to choose a processor based on features and cost, not on the manufacturer.

It’s also worth noting that although the CPU is the heart of the PC and a lot depends on it, other factors also affect the behavior of the assembly in games, including the parameters of the RAM and discrete graphics card.

Compare AMD A6-9220 and Intel Core i5-4200U

Comparative analysis of AMD A6-9220 and Intel Core i5-4200U processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphical interfaces, Compatibility, Peripherals, Virtualization, Image quality in graphics, Graphics API support, Security and reliability, Technology.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, 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), Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.

AMD A6-9220

versus

Intel Core i5-4200U

Benefits

Reasons to choose AMD A6-9220

  • Newer processor, approx. : 2.9 GHz vs 2.60 GHz
  • L1 cache is about 25% larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
  • L2 cache is 2 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
  • About 29% better performance in CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) benchmark: 5.922 vs 4.575
  • 8.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s): 10.467 vs 1.291
  • About 3% more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) benchmark: 29.364 vs 3936
  • Performance in GFXBench 4.0 benchmark — T-Rex (Fps) about 3% more: 4038 vs 3936
Release date 1 June 2016 vs 4 June 2013
Maximum frequency 2.9GHz vs 2.60GHz
Level 1 cache 160 KB vs 128 KB
Level 2 cache 1MB vs 512KB
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 5. 922 vs 4.575
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 10.467 vs 1.291
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 29.364 vs 1.822
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 4038 vs 3936
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 4038 vs 3936

Reasons to choose Intel Core i5-4200U

  • 2 more threads: 4 vs 2
  • Approximately 11% more maximum core temperature: 100°C vs 90°C
  • Newer process technology for manufacturing the processor allows it to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 22 nm vs 28 nm
  • Performance in PassMark — Single thread mark about 13% better: 1295 vs 1142
  • Performance in PassMark — CPU mark about 71% better: 2197 vs 1288
  • About 10% better performance in CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 5.302 vs 4.825
  • 3.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.229 vs 0.075
  • About 16% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 862 vs 743
  • About 73% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames): 2659 vs 15270011 GFXBench 4.0 performance — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) about 16% more: 862 vs 743
  • GFXBench 4.0 performance — Manhattan (Fps) about 73% more: 2659 vs 1537
Quantity streams 4 vs 2 Maximum core temperature 100°C vs 90°C Technological process 22 nm vs 28 nm PassMark — Single thread mark 1295 vs 1142 PassMark — CPU mark 2197 vs 1288 CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 5.302 vs 4.825 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 0.229 vs 0.075 GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 862 vs 743 GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 2659 vs 1537 GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 862 vs 743 GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 2659 vs 1537

Benchmark comparison

CPU 1: AMD A6-9220
CPU 2: Intel Core i5-4200U

PassMark — Single thread mark
CPU 1
CPU 2
PassMark — CPU mark
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 — Video Composition (Frames/s)
CPU 1
CPU 2
10.467
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)
CPU 1
CPU 2
29.364
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)
CPU 1
CPU 2
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames)
CPU 1
CPU 2
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames)
CPU 1
CPU 2
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)
CPU 1
CPU 2
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps)
CPU 1
CPU 2
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps)
CPU 1
CPU 2
Name AMD A6-9220 Intel Core i5-4200U
PassMark — Single thread mark 1142 1295
PassMark — CPU mark 1288 2197
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 5.922 4.575
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 4.825 5.302
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 0.075 0.229
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 10.467 1.291
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 29.364 1.822
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 743 862
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 1537 2659
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Frames) 4038 3936
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 743 862
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 1537 2659
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 4038 3936
Geekbench 4 — Single Core 540
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core 1121

Feature comparison

support

AMD A6-9220 Intel Core i5-4200U
Architecture name Stoney Ridge Haswell
Family AMD A-Series Processors
Production date June 1, 2016 4 June 2013
OPN Tray AM9220AYN23AC
OS Support Windows 10 — 64-Bit Edition, RHEL x86 64-Bit, Ubuntu x86 64-Bit
Place in the ranking 1391 1453
Series AMD A6-Series APU for Laptops 4th Generation Intel® Core™ i5 Processors
Applicability Laptop Mobile
Processor Number i5-4200U
Status Launched
Support 64 bit
Base frequency 2. 5 GHz 1.60 GHz
Compute Cores 5
Crystal area 124.5 mm 118 mm
Level 1 cache 160KB 128KB
Level 2 cache 1MB 512KB
Process 28nm 22nm
Maximum core temperature 90°C 100°C
Maximum frequency 2. 9 GHz 2.60 GHz
Number of cores 2 2
Number of GPU cores 3
Number of threads 2 4
Number of transistors 1200 Million 1400 million
Unlocked
Bus Speed ​​ 5 GT/s DMI2
Level 3 cache 3072KB
Maximum number of memory channels 1 2
Maximum memory bandwidth 17. 1 GB/s 25.6 GB/s
Supported memory frequency 2133MHz
Supported memory types DDR4 DDR3L 1333/1600, LPDDR3 1333/1600
Maximum memory size 16GB
Maximum GPU clock 655MHz 1GHz
Number of iGPU cores 3
Integrated graphics AMD Radeon R5 Graphics Intel® HD Graphics 4400
Device ID 0xA16
Graphics base frequency 200MHz
Graphics max dynamic frequency 1. 00 GHz
Intel® Clear Video Technology HD
Intel® Flexible Display Interface (Intel® FDI)
Intel® InTru™ 3D Technology
Intel® Quick Sync Video
Video memory size 2GB
DisplayPort
HDMI
eDP
Maximum number of monitors supported 3
WiDi support
Configurable TDP 10-15 Watt
Supported sockets FP4 BGA FCBGA1168
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 15 Watt
Low Halogen Options Available
Maximum number of processors in configuration 1
Package Size 40mm x 24mm x 1. 5mm
PCI Express revision 3.0 2.0
Integrated IDE
Integrated LAN
Number of PCI Express lanes 12
Maximum number of SATA 6 Gb/s ports 4
Number of USB ports 4
PCI
PCIe configurations 4×1, 2×4
Total number of SATA ports 4
UART
USB revision 3. 0
AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™)
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x)
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)
Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT)
Maximum resolution via DisplayPort [email protected]
Maximum resolution via HDMI 1.4 [email protected]
DirectX 11. 2/12
OpenGL 4.3
Anti-Theft Technology
Execute Disable Bit (EDB)
Intel® Identity Protection Technology
Intel® Secure Key Technology
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT)
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology
Flexible Display interface (FDI)
General Purpose Input/Output (GPIO)
HD Audio
Idle States
Extended Instructions Intel® SSE4. 1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
Intel 64
Intel® Active Management Technology (AMT)
Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX)
Intel® AES New Instructions
Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® ME Firmware Version 9.5
Intel® Rapid Storage Technology (RST)
Intel® TSX-NI
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology
Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility
Matrix Storage
Smart Connect
Thermal Monitoring

Which laptop processor is better: comparison, specifications

Contents

  • 1 Main characteristics of processors
    • 1. 1 Manufacturer
    • 1.2 Energy saving
    • 1.3 Nuclei number
    • 1.4 Tact frequency
    • 1.5 CASH-PAMMIC
  • 2 Comparison Intel and AMD for prices
  • 3 Comparison on technical parameters
  • 4

  • 4.1 Simple tasks
  • 4.2 Gaming PC
  • 4.3 Design work and video editing
  • 4.4 TOP-3 rating 2016 Notebook CPU
  • 5 Conclusion
  • 6 Related videos
  • With the widespread use of smartphones and tablets, the laptop has become a separate segment in mobile electronics. Yes, the same operations are possible on it, but a smartphone and a tablet will not be able to calculate an estimate, develop a project, and just play serious games too. All devices just have different tasks and different CPUs. But what should be the processor for a laptop, it is he who is responsible for performance — a question that each user decides for himself individually.

    So when choosing a portable computer, this component should be treated very carefully. It is better to immediately choose a processor with such characteristics so that they are enough with a margin for further work on it. Because replacing it with another, most likely, will not work.

    Processor Highlights

    The CPU is actually the most important part of any laptop as it handles most of the vital processes. So, it is he who is responsible for how efficiently the entire laptop will work.

    Of the main parameters when buying this device, you should pay attention to the following points:

    • manufacturer;
    • energy saving;
    • number of cores;
    • clock frequency;
    • built-in cache size.

    Manufacturer

    At the moment there are two electronics giants — AMD and Intel. 98% of the market is divided between these firms. Others also produce them, but the quality of these products does not stand up to any competition compared to these two corporations.

    Only these manufacturers have introduced mechanisms that can automatically adjust the core frequency:

    • Turbo Core ;
    • Turbo Boost .

    These technologies help to automatically adjust the frequency of the cores depending on their workload. For dual-core laptop models, the performance of one core is accelerated if the program is not designed to work in a multi-core environment.

    Energy Saving

    Given the high demand for smartphones and tablets, most notebook processors are designed to consume as little power as possible. So almost all laptop models have LED screen backlighting, which helps to save energy resources. For this purpose, AMD has a function AMD Cool’n’Quiet , and Intel has Enhanced Intel Speedstep Technology , with which the frequency and voltage of the CPU are regulated. So it is possible to extend energy resources, reduce CPU heating. When increased performance is needed, the clock frequency, followed by the voltage, increases. If the device is not currently busy with bulk work or the user is just surfing the Internet, then the clock frequency is automatically reduced, and the voltage is slightly reduced. This reduces power consumption and increases battery life.

    But here it is important to understand that in general, energy saving is helped by a decrease in performance. Simply put, if a laptop is used as a typewriter, then an energy-saving processor is needed. For complex calculations, such as modern games or video processing require, it is no longer suitable.

    Virtually all of the latest generation AMD and Intel processors, both mid and high end, can work with these new technologies.

    Number of cores

    Now you will not surprise anyone with multi-core microprocessors. This technology is used in all modern devices. It is no longer uncommon to find laptops with a dual-core CPU on sale. They are now equipped with the most budget laptops. And on more expensive multimedia, gaming and enterprise models, three- and four-core processors are installed.

    But such CPUs also have disadvantages:

    • Price. The greater the number of cores, the greater the price of the chip.
    • Heat dissipation requirements increase as power consumption increases.
    • Software. Not all programs are designed for multi-core systems.

    In modern laptops, the work of the processor directly depends on their number. But then again, frequency is more important for a gaming laptop. Not all of them will be downloaded. And when processing a movie or large photos, all cores will be fully loaded. In other words, the processor should optimally meet your needs. The best laptops in the price / performance category are precisely the dual-core models.

    Clock frequency

    Measured in MHz. Logically, the limit value should be decisive. But for laptops, the situation is somewhat different. Increasing the clock speed inevitably increases the load on the battery. The chip requires maximum cooling to operate efficiently, but the result is reduced battery life.

    Let’s take an example. Processors Core i7820QM operate at a frequency of 1. 73 GHz. Compared to Celeron P4600 , which has this value of 2 GHz, it may seem that the second is faster. But let’s look at the price. The first model costs $550, while the Celeron P4600 is only $80! Paradox? No. The Core i7 has 4 cores with 8 MB cache, while the “rival” has only 2 cores with 2 MB cache.

    It is now clear that there are other factors besides clock speed. For example, the presence of technologies Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading .

    Cache

    Cache is a memory that is just as important as RAM. Here is a completely different level of data exchange speeds. Accordingly, the size of the cache affects the characteristics of the processor itself. For example, CPU speed depends on its size, and indicators such as additional cores and frequency level fade into the background.

    But the size of the cache affects the cost of the chip. In addition, a large volume leads to a faster increase in the temperature of the CPU itself. And in modern laptops, a three-level cache can reach a size of up to 8 MB. Therefore, in most chips, the cache does not exceed 2–3 MB.

    Comparison of Intel and AMD at prices

    If we take such popular processors from Intel as Core i3 , Core i5 and Core i7 , and compare prices with popular A4 , A6 , , A8 and A10 from AMD, and then combine the results in the form of a graph, the result will be as shown in the figure below.

    Now you can clearly see the big difference in price. Processors from AMD are 3.5-4 times cheaper than Intel. Due to the low cost, AMD products are very popular both in Russia and in the CIS. With a small difference in performance, buying a laptop, you can save a lot.

    But on the other hand, an integrated graphics card from AMD can be a good solution for gamers. But we must always remember that such high-speed systems are subject to heating and significant energy consumption. And if battery life is critical, then it’s better to add some money and buy products from Intel.

    technical parameters comparison0003

    • Intel is 15-20% more expensive than AMD. The higher the performance of the chip, the more noticeable the difference in price.
    • These chips have different sockets, which means it is impossible to replace one with another.
    • In terms of performance, Intel outperforms similar AMD by 20-25%.
    • AMD graphics core is 20-25% more powerful than Intel counterparts. And if the computer has an AMD video card, this difference increases even more.
    • The power consumption of Intel CPUs is significantly lower, at least 30% lower, than similar AMD CPUs.

    We select a processor for a laptop

    If with this CPU a laptop can easily cope with its tasks, consuming energy to a minimum, then it is ideal for it. For portable computers, autonomy is the main condition, unlike a desktop PC. And when the energy consumption for cooling the chip is minimal, then the entire laptop from batteries will work longer. For different purposes, you can pick up on sale and different laptops, each of which in its own price category. And the selection of the most powerful chip for it depends on what tasks the computer will mainly perform.

    Simple tasks

    If you are going to mainly perform everyday tasks such as typing in office applications, searching for information on the Internet, working with a photo editor, watching video files, then a super-powerful processor is not needed at all. With such daily needs, the dual-core Intel Core i3 will do just fine. With tasks of this type, it works easily, and the battery lasts for a long time.

    Gaming PC

    For a gamer, the power of the processor will be decisive. Quad core AMD Athlon 2 with an operating frequency of 2800 MHz will better cope with the graphic requirements in the game than, for example, Intel Core i5 with two cores.

    If you need long battery life, you can lower the operating voltage on the chip from 1. 4 volts to 1.2, and the total power consumption will decrease by 30%. Laptop processors from AMD will be as economical as Intel’s, but better at gaming.

    If the notebook is to be used for a long time for gaming, periodic replacement of the thermal paste is required to avoid overheating.

    Design work and video editing

    Development of volumetric projections in 3D, design work, video editing and cutting, complex graphic constructions require high data exchange rates in computing processes. The Intel Core i7 Sandy Bridge CPUs plus a dedicated high performance graphics card deliver maximum performance at low power consumption.

    With such equipment on board, a laptop can easily prepare an estimate of costs, calculate a preliminary project in front of the client in order to show the pros and cons of the order on the spot. And here the speed of calculations plays a decisive role.

    TOP-3 rating 2016 Notebook CPU

    Currently, chips of different power are required for different tasks. Both AMD and Intel are successfully working in this direction. We have prepared the TOP 3 best laptop processors:

    • AMD FX Vishera . It has the highest CPU frequency at the moment, which is 4700 MHz. Four cores can work alternately and all eight at once. The main buyers are owners of gaming personal computers and laptops. In addition to very high performance, it has the largest amount of cache.
    • Intel Core i7 Devil’s Canyon . Works very productively with video editing programs, 3D modeling with complex calculations. High performance goes well with economical battery life.
    • Quad-core Intel Core i7 Skylake . Designed to work with complex computing processes. In addition to working with a video editor, it is suitable for testing programs. It has the lowest power consumption among chips of the same class.

    Conclusion

    Now you have a good idea of ​​what the peculiarity of mobile chips is and will be able to choose the right laptop model for your purposes. And knowing what an AMD or Intel processor for a laptop is capable of, you can more confidently decide how much money from the budget can be allocated to buy a laptop. The choice of model is up to you.

    Related videos

    AMD A6-3650 and A8-3850 processors

    Testing the CPU part of the new APUs

    Over the past six months, AMD fans, and not only them, have been waiting for the release of the company’s new architecture. However, as it turned out, Bulldozer will have to wait a few more months. But the pause did not become so long — but new APUs appeared on the market. Not the first ones, but if the Brazos platform was aimed at the market of any surrogate systems (such as nettops / netbooks) and worked accordingly, then Sabine and Lynx are already quite complete solutions for real computers. The first is for mobile, and the second is generally for desktop.

    And with them, as we have already written more than once, things are far from brilliant for AMD now. Moreover, the saddest thing is that the company has to retreat with battles not only in the high-performance segment: in budget computers, the positions of the «green» ones after the appearance of new processors with the Sandy Bridge architecture also look far from the best. The Propus crystal and its derivatives no longer “pull”, and unleashing price wars with the help of Deneb is more expensive for yourself — this crystal is almost twice as large in area as Sandy Bridge DC (258 mm² versus 131 mm²). Trying to throw all your energy into new cheap but fast dual-core processors is irrational — there are already not too many resources to be wasted. Shrink to a new process technology of an old architecture? At best, this will allow the competitor to catch up in some way, but not bypass it. In general, an asymmetric response is needed, as the Soviet leadership once called the electromagnetic interference system developed by scientists to mask ballistic missiles, which balanced the breakthrough of «enemy forces» in the development of cruise missiles;) That’s just Llano and is such a very effective flank strike. Indeed — what does the buyer of a home budget system need? He needs not only a processor with sufficient (not necessarily too high) performance, but also a relatively good video adapter. Not something with huge computing power, but at least at the level of the lowest discrete. If something like this can be built into a processor, then such a model will already be more attractive than processors of a comparable price, even with lower performance of x86 cores, if only because it will save a little. And in terms of simplifying computer systems, a $100 processor that completely replaces a $50 processor and another $50 graphics card is just manna from heaven.

    Llano as it is

    Note that the practical implementation of combining the CPU and GPU under one cover at Intel was handled earlier. At first I had to use two crystals, but in Sandy Bridge everything fit into one. However, as our tests have already shown, even the older modification of the GMA HD 3000 manages to fully compete with the Radeon HD 5450 except where the GPU performance is simply… unimportant. But this is just the level of the GPU built into Zacate. For the mentioned family, perhaps, it is redundant, due to their weak processor part, which does not allow the graphics to unfold at full strength, but on desktop platforms, the task of keeping within a thermal package of 18 W (or less) is definitely not worth it. Thus, both the processor and graphics can be made more powerful. Moreover, Zacate was produced according to the “intermediate” process technology of 40 nm, and Llano — according to a thinner 32 nm, which allows you to “squeeze out” a little more.

    Actually, the difference in the approaches of both companies is clearly visible on the slide from the presentation of one of them 🙂 Both Llano and Sandy Bridge QC have approximately the same number of transistors, which, when using the same manufacturing process, gives a comparable area (and therefore, the cost). An equal contribution is made by the former northbridge (memory controllers and PCIe, which has long been used for communication with the southbridge). But the remaining 2/3 of the area is distributed differently. Intel has powerful x86 cores, a capacious cache and … a small such GPU is somewhere on the outskirts. What this leads to in terms of practical performance — we have already said above.

    But in the AMD solution, the GPU accounts for even more area than is occupied by the “processor” itself. As a result, it was possible to shove as many as 400 (in the A8 family) or 320 (A6) graphic pipelines under a single heat diffuser cover. The first is already the level of the Radeon HD 5570; only the clock frequency is 50 MHz less. The second is the Radeon HD 5550, but, again, with slightly lower frequencies. Note that the same area ratio will remain in the dual-core processors of the A4 family, where the graphics will be proportionally cut down to 160 pipelines, as, for example, in the Radeon HD 6450. But they will not reduce their number to 80, and after all, the last value , recall, it was quite enough to compete with integrated graphics from Intel. The old integrated AMD chipsets, which have to be used in conjunction with Athlon and Phenom, are limited to 40 pipelines, and the architecture from the last year. In general, in terms of graphics, Llano is a breakthrough to a new level 🙂

    Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for x86 kernels. The good old Propus was taken as the basis, i.e. four cores, but without the third level cache. All improvements consist in increasing the L2 cache, which is now 1 MiB per core, strengthening the memory controller that can support everything up to DDR3-1866 (with two modules per channel, you will have to be content with DDR3-1600, but this is also a step forward), and introducing small architectural improvements. All this together allows the company to talk about an average performance increase of 6% at an equal frequency. There are only a couple of “buts”: firstly, it is not entirely clear with which of the previous crystals the company compares the novelty, and secondly, not all of them intersect in frequencies too much — the best Llano is still limited to 2. 9GHz, and Propus, following Deneb, has already crossed the 3 GHz mark for a long time. In general, a priori, the new quad-core AMD in terms of performance on the x86 code is not even a competitor to the old ones. Not to mention the Core i5 and others like them. But anyway — it seems to us that such an approach of designers, namely a strong bias in favor of the graphic part, has every right to life.

    Why? And let’s look at the recommended prices. For example, the A8-3850 costs $135. At first glance, quite a lot: at the level of older Core i3. But after all, along with it, the user also receives video at the level of the previous generation card for 99 dollars. Prices tend to fall, but even the new Radeon HD 6450 costs $55. If we add $75 for the Pentium G840 to that, we get $130, just $5 less than the A8-3850 costs. In which, after all, there are four x86 cores. And the graphics, after all, are more powerful. Well, the A6-3650, with this approach to comparison, turns out to be a Celeron competitor 🙂 In general, when using integrated graphics, these processors are extremely interesting. And since it is already used in 3/4 of computers, we have a huge market where Llano is more than competitive. Along the way, by the way, the issue of competition on the other front is also being resolved: NVIDIA’s junior graphics solutions are becoming of little demand. Yes, of course, you can continue to buy them for use with Intel processors, but is there any point in this situation to focus on junior , if the same level of performance is achievable with integrated graphics? Well, if its power is not important, then GMA HD can be completely limited. In general, AMD can increase its market share in the graphics market as well. Which will lead to the fact that software manufacturers will more carefully and fully use the capabilities of the Radeon HD. Ideally, not only in games, but also in other software, which will finally allow the Fusion concept itself to truly shine: the CPU and GPU should work together. Well, the more the list of programs expands, in which part of the work can be shifted to the GPU, the less significant the formal loss to competing solutions in the field of executing the «classic» x86 code will become.

    Thus Vasyuki are renamed New Moscow and universal happiness and prosperity come. Maybe. Someday. In the meantime, everything is much more ordinary — only games create a serious load on the GPU from mass applications, but all programs need the CPU. And how is the situation with its performance in the new APU (you are not yet confused in various * PU? ;)) we will now check in practice, which, as you know, is the best criterion of truth.

    Test stand configuration

    And is it really worth being afraid of a TDP of 100 W? After all, previous AMD quad-core processors required 95W (or even 125W) on their own. Now, both the former northbridge and the integrated GPU fit into this framework, which is the most important thing. And the appetites of modern GPUs are not so small: the Radeon HD 5570 TDP is 39 W, the HD 6570 is 50 W, and even the HD 6450 with its 160 pipelines requires 31 W. Of course, all these chips are manufactured using 40 nm technology, and some blocks of the integrated HD 6550D and 6530D are separated from the CPU (in particular, the APU has one memory controller for both components), and besides, discrete adapters have their own memory, but still it can be argued that the graphics need at least 25-30 watts. That is, in the mode of operation with a discrete video card, the A8-3850 should fit no more than 80 watts, and the A6-3650 — generally 70 watts. Everything else is a reserve for graphics, which in this case is idle. So the processors themselves have become more economical than their predecessors. 910 we have already tested using the new method (the first one is a reference point at all), so you can compare Llano with previous developments at the same clock frequency. And the Phenom II X4 840 is currently the fastest version of the Propus, so it is well suited to compete with the A8-3850.

    Processor Pentium G850 Core i3-530 Core i3-2100
    Core name Sandy3 Bridge DC 90

    0 A8-3850SM ASUS F1A75-V Pro (A75) Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333; 9-9-9-24-2T)
    AM3 ASUS M4A78T-E (790GX) Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333; 9-9-9-24-2T)
    Pentium G850 Intel DP67BG (P67) Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1066; 8-8-8-20)
    Core i3-530 ASRock P55M Pro (P55) Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333; 9-9-9-24)
    Core i3-2100 Intel DP67BG (P67) Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333; 9-9-9-24) 9016

    As we have already said, the new processors also support DDR3-1866, but only in the single module per channel mode. But we still decided to choose just such a mode of operation — after all, fast memory should give a significant increase in the performance of processors without L3. This, of course, will be most relevant when using integrated graphics, but discrete graphics will not hurt either. And in order to evaluate this increase, and in general — to make a comparison in the closest conditions (especially since even DDR3-1600 is still expensive, not to mention faster modifications), we tested the A8-3850 with DDR3-1333. The letters «SM» in this variant mean nothing more than «Slow Memory».

    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 (for details on the testing methodology, see a separate article). The results on the diagrams are given in points, the performance of the iXBT.com reference test system of the 2011 sample is taken as 100 points. It is based on the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and video card (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1280 MB by Palit) are standard for all tests of the “main line” and can only be changed within the framework of special studies. 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

    This group is traditionally low-threaded and «uneven» to Intel processors, so everything has been clear with models based on the Sandy Bridge core — they have no competitors yet, and are not expected in the near future. But with all the other participants, the situation is much more interesting. As you can see, architectural improvements and fast memory allow the A6-3650 to keep up with the Phenom II X4 910 in this very cache-loving group, while the Athlon II X4 620 is far behind. All the Propus can do is a high frequency, but even as a Phenom II X4 840 it shows a result equal to the A8-3850 with the «slow» DDR3-1333. Fast memory gives the latter another 2% performance and brings it to the first place among all the «oldies». All in all, a good result… unless, of course, we forget about the existence of high-frequency Phenom II X4 900 or Sandy Bridge 😉 But both the first and the second are a slightly different market.

    Final rendering of 3D scenes

    And here the A8-3850 is the fastest. Moreover, with DDR3-1866 it even overtakes Phenom II X4 840, despite the 10% lag in clock frequency, and with DDR3-1333 it lags quite a bit behind it. Yes, and the A6-3650 is again at the level of the equal frequency Deneb, but not the Propus. True, he has already let the Core i3-2100 go ahead, but that’s all. In general, architecture is architecture, threads are threads, but having four real computing cores is sometimes useful. And it’s doubly useful to have fast compute cores. However, «very fast», again, is only available in the price class «from $ 150», but not where we are in today’s testing.

    Packing and unpacking

    7-Zip uses additional threads very effectively when compressing data, but this is only one test out of four. At the same time, all four need fast work with memory and a fast shared cache, so the distribution of roles in this test does not surprise anyone. Here the A6-3650 even with fast memory failed to keep up with the Phenom II X4 910, which, however, easily defeated the high-frequency 840 as well. in first place among processors with older architectures. The only thing is that the results of quite a budget Pentium G850 are unattainable for the «oldies», the solemnity of the moment greatly spoils.

    Audio encoding

    Another problem for «pure» mathematics, where, as we saw earlier, almost any optimization of modern processors turns out to be practically useless. But not in the case of Llano, which managed to speed up radically compared to earlier representatives of the K10.5 architecture. So much so that the A8-3850 turned out to be faster than even the overclocked Phenom II X4 840. What made it possible to get such an increase? Definitely not a cache — as you can see, here Deneb and Propus at the same frequency are almost equivalent. Hardly an improved branch prediction block — complex logic is not required in audio coding. And the memory controller is «out of business» here: no difference was found between DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1866. It may very well be that the allocated block of integer division “fired”. In a word, it is still difficult to say what affected it to such a noticeable extent. The main thing is what happened. And the Intel processors chosen for comparison have not shined here before — in this price class, the company still offers only dual-core models, which even Hyper-Threading support and high efficiency cannot cope with quad-core processors at a comparable clock frequency. Well, the appearance of Llano allowed AMD to pull up low-frequency CPUs as well.

    Compilation

    The weakest point of the Propus crystal under such a load was a small amount of cache memory, and even separate for all cores. As you can see, this problem persisted in Llano, although it was weakened by an increase in L2 and the development of faster memory. But still — at a frequency of 2.6 GHz, Deneb is still the fastest. Actually, and not only on it: Phenom II X4 910 without much straining bypassed both Phenom II X4 840 and A8-3850 working with DDR3-1333. And only the support of a faster memory helped the latter to snatch the victory. By the way, the amount of gain from memory acceleration suggests that with «regular» low-cost modules, the A6-3650 will be slower than the younger Core i3 of the new line. Or, at best, no faster than him. On the other hand, did someone promise a breakthrough in terms of processor speed? The fact that in most tests we still manage to get +10% to Athlon II X4 with the same frequency is, in our opinion, a reason for joy. After all, we can say that earlier in our testing a whole processor was used, and now only a half;)

    Mathematical and engineering calculations

    And again the change of leaders — the Sandy Bridge architecture dual-cores take the first place, and the old Core i3-530 is faster than all the AMD processors we used today. Therefore, it remains only to compare the latter with each other. As you can see, here Llano at least a little, but bypass Propus at the same frequency. Here, Deneb can already be defeated only by having superiority in frequency, however, with a head start in this regard, Propus can easily turn out to be the fastest. So after the resounding victories in some of the previous tests, it is almost a defeat here — yes, there is an acceleration, but it is extremely small. And not even enough to overtake last year’s Intel processors, not to mention equal competition with SBDC.

    Raster graphics

    And a little more salt on the same open wound. Here Llano shows a 10% gain over Propus, and Deneb is slightly outperformed. But in order to catch up with at least the old Core i3, you need another 10% additional efficiency, or the same 10% to the clock frequency. In fact, there is neither one nor the other. And in such conditions, trying to compete with at least the new Pentium is a disastrous business.

    Vector graphics

    The same again in the same place. There is an increase compared to previous in-house developments, but it is too small to compete with Intel processors. Extra cores could help, but of all the applications of the last two groups, only Adobe Photoshop can demonstrate relatively normal multithreading support. Therefore, the cores are actually «superfluous» and remain, only increasing the price.

    Video encoding

    But in video encoding tests, we could never complain about poor multithreading support. Although it is clearly seen that the architecture is also of great importance — the Pentium G850 almost caught up with the Core i3-530, despite the support of the latest Hyper-Threading, and both of these models are very close to real quad-cores. And the Core i3-2100 shared the first place with the Phenom II X4 840, which has four cores and an additional 100 MHz. But for us, in the framework of today’s testing, the most important thing is that Llano almost does not lag behind them. And the second important observation — contrary to the common stereotype that only the processor is important for encoding, not the memory, here the difference between DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1866 is very significant: almost at the same level as in archiver tests. But there is nothing surprising in this, if you think about it: after all, unlike audio coding, here the amount of data that has to be “pumped” through the processor is large. Previously, this effect was not so pronounced, because, firstly, the memory controllers themselves were slower (and here AMD specially modified it — otherwise it makes no sense to embed a powerful GPU), and secondly, we used processors with shared cache third-level memory, which somewhat smoothed the results (especially helping inter-nuclear data exchange). The result is obvious.

    Office software

    As soon as it comes to single-threaded (for the most part) programs, we again see the triumph of Sandy Bridge, and indeed — dual-core Intel processors of any generation of Core. However, in practice, Core2 is enough here, and any, so finding out who is faster is purely academic. From this point of view, we state the fact that, as usual, there is an increase compared to Propus, and even Deneb is bypassed (at an equal clock frequency, of course), but nothing more.

    Java

    Once again, we see Llano outperforming Propus by 10% at the same clock speed. Moreover, this is aggravated by the victory over Deneb under the same conditions — the Java machine is weakly susceptible to cache memory. But the number of cores is very even, therefore, Intel processors of this price range are not able to oppose anything to AMD’s new products. The triumph is overshadowed only by the fact that both companies also have faster processors (the same Propus can be scaled very well in terms of frequency, which Phenom II X4 840 demonstrates), and the A8-3850 is currently the best that exists performed by FM1.

    Games

    Games could not help but react to the increase in cache and memory acceleration, however, as we can see, the advantage over Propus turned out to be not so radical: comparable to other tests. But it is! It is also noticeable that the shared cache is better than the separate one — the Phenom II X4 910, with its ridiculous clock speed, keeps at the level of the Phenom II X4 840. And only the memory helps the A6-3650 to be faster — as we can see in the example of the A8-3850, its influence is very strong: at the level of a 10 percent difference in clock frequency. But even with the latest fast memory, the Core i3-2100 is still faster, i.e. for use in conjunction with a discrete graphics card, the new Intel platform continues to be more preferable even in an “inexpensive” version.

    Multitasking environment

    Since this time there were a variety of processors in the article, we decided to make public their results in one of the experimental groups, the need for which the Bolsheviks have been talking about for so long 🙂 The essence of the test is simple: 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. More detailed information can be obtained from the description of the testing methodology, but for now let’s just look at the results.

    So, what is the main conclusion that can be drawn right now? This approach to testing does not allow us to reveal anything fundamentally new — we just have another multi-threaded group formed. What is called, «who would doubt» 🙂 Here, as we see, both the number of cores and technologies for increasing the number of threads are relevant (Core i3-2100 managed to invade the «holy of holies» of quad-core models), and processor architecture (even support for HT is not allowed the Core i3-530 to noticeably break away from the Pentium G850), both the cache memory capacity and the clock frequency — in a word, all processor subsystems in general. And in this regard, this test is quite interesting. But firstly, as already noted in its full description (in the methodology), the test is still synthetic, and secondly, it is not so unique: the diagram somehow resembles, for example, audio coding. Only there there is absolutely no load on the memory subsystem, but here it is also involved. In general, taking into account the above comments on this test, the decision not to rush to introduce it into the main methodology is correct. But on the other hand, those who like to prove that there is no alternative to the path with an increase in the number of cores on the desktop have a new proof. Let them use it — we don’t mind 🙂

    Total

    From a purely technical point of view, the results of Llano family processors can be assessed positively — they are indeed faster than Propus, so the latter seems to be able to leave. Only the older model on this chip remains interesting, which actually demonstrates the same level of performance as the A8-3850 — slightly behind the latter, using DDR3-1866, but slightly ahead of the one working with the same (and already inexpensive) DDR3-1333. By the way, there was at least one non-conspiracy reason to call this processor Phenom II X4 840, and not in a more logical way — Athlon II X4 650. Indeed, as a result, it turns out that all Athlon II X4 are slower than the A-series, so this family can put under the knife. But it is a pity to throw away Propus entirely, since this crystal has more work to do in high-frequency modifications. Like the Phenom II X4 900-series: at the same clock frequency, they are no better than Llano, but in fact, processors from the 955 with a frequency of 3.2 GHz and faster are actually supplied now, and the A-series does not reach this level. In general, without reference to the price, the new family can be considered quite successful.

    But everything is much worse with it — the same Phenom II X4 955 costs the same as A8-3850. And from the Intel model range, it is not the Core i3-2100 (which still failed to catch up in the overall standings) that competes with the latter, but the i3-2120 (for now; in the near future, prices for this processor are planned to be reduced, apparently piling up on this price bar something faster). The i3-2100 costs only $2 more (wholesale) than the A6-3650. Moreover, it is obvious that AMD does not have the opportunity to unleash a price war: as we already wrote at the beginning, the area (and cost) of Llano is at the same level as that of Deneb or the quad-core Sandy Bridge. Dual-core chips, on the other hand, cost Intel about half as much as it uses, offering them (albeit in a greatly reduced form) at prices ranging from $64 (in the form of a Pentium G620) and even $42 (expected in less than a month Celeron G530 ). So what is the point of releasing the A-series?

    Something we didn’t do today, testing only half of the new APU. After all, in fact, it turned out to be so large and expensive because a very powerful (for an integrated solution) GPU was built into it. In Intel, on the contrary, they seriously worked on the already good processor part, which is clearly seen from the results of new and old Core i3, since the latter are now very often overtaken even by models with the Pentium name. (Or they are not too far behind even in multi-threaded tests, which is even more significant. ) And in terms of graphics, the company did not mark time, but the transition from GMA HD to GMA HD 3000 (not to mention the still more massive HD 2000) even does not pull on a full-fledged step — so, a small step. AMD decided, on the contrary, to make a «big leap» in this direction, immediately bringing integrated graphics to a qualitatively new level. And the fact that the CPU in Llano turned out to be at least a little more efficient than the company’s previous developments is nothing more than a small addition to this. It could well remain at the same level. The main thing in Sabine / Lynx is a high degree of integration, which allows you to get by with just two chips in a full-fledged budget computer — with game video, a quad-core processor and modern peripherals, including high-quality USB 3.0 support. Theoretically, mass Intel solutions are also dual-chip, but in order to play more or less modern games, you will have to add a discrete video card to them, and USB 3.0 until next year will be provided only by external (hence, optional) circuits. That is, despite the fact that when used together with a powerful discrete NVIDIA card, A-series processors turned out to be not so bad, this application is not intended for them. Above-average discrete video is the domain of Phenom II-based systems now and the FX line since autumn. And you should use Llano either by limiting yourself to integrated graphics, or by adding to it some of AMD’s junior discrete solutions — after all, in this case, both GPUs can work together, i.e. nothing received from the company upon purchase (and paid in full) will disappear. But how good such use cases are, we will check in one of the following articles.

    According to the results of today’s test, we note that within the framework of the FM1 construct, AMD decided to offer at the same time a processor suitable for fans of discrete graphics — just when this article was being written. The Athlon II X4 631, which appeared in the price list of the company simultaneously with the models of the 3×00 line, Athlon II X4 631 is almost a complete analog of the A6-3650 (even the declared TDP level is the same 100 W) with one significant exception: the video core is blocked in it.

    2022 © All rights reserved