Intel Pentium E5200 vs AMD Athlon 64 X2 Benchmarks, Specs, Performance Comparison and Differences
|
|
|
|
|
Intel Pentium E5200 vs AMD Athlon 64 X2
Compare the technical characteristics between the processor Intel Pentium E5200 and the group of processors AMD Athlon 64 X2, but also with the respective performance in the benchmarks.
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.
Specification comparison:
| Intel Pentium E5200 | 2008 Q3 | 45 nm | 2 | 2 | 2. |
2.5 | 2 | 8 | 16 | 65 | 74.1 | 204 | 401 | 79 | 142 | 994 | 832 | 1529 | 2446 | ||||||||||
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ | 2007 Q2 | 90 nm | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1000 | 16 | 125 | 63 | 107 | 188 | 65 | 127 | 134 | 261 | 344 | 670 | 1026 | 946 | 1475 | 2505 | 322 | 599 | ||||
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 2008 Q3 | 65 nm | 2 | 2 | 2. 6 |
2.6 | 1 | 8 | 16 | 65 | 68 | 88 | 164 | 62 | 115 | 881 | 757 | 1243 | 2069 | 217 | 397 | ||||||||
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ | 2006 Q2 | 65 nm | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1 | 8 | 16 | 65 | 68 | 86 | 172 | 55 | 115 | 102 | 213 | 868 | 693 | 1138 | 1833 | 238 | 443 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
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.
This comparative table allows us to better appreciate the differences between the various processors. The performance for Geekbench 4 single-core and multi-core are established by default on the Windows operating system, on Linux if there is at least one server processor present in the comparison, on Mac OS X if we make a parallel with at least one Apple branded processor on Linux and Android if a smartphone processor other than Apple is present. Each time, in 64-bit version.
Performance comparison with the benchmarks:
| CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
|
Intel Pentium E5200 |
204 401 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ |
107 188 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
86 172 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
88 164 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.
| Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
|
Intel Pentium E5200 |
79 142 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ |
65 127 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
55 115 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
62 115 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.
| Cinebench R20 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ |
134 261 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
102 213 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R20 is a multi-platform test software which allows to evaluate the hardware capacities of a device such as a computer, a tablet, a server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant.
| Cinebench R23 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ |
344 670 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R23 is cross-platform testing software that allows you to assess the hardware capabilities of a device such as a computer, tablet, server.
This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant. The test scene contains no less than 2,000 objects and more than 300,000 polygons in total.
| PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ |
1.026 946 |
|
Intel Pentium E5200 |
994 832 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
881 757 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
868 693 |
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.
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ |
1.475 2.505 |
|
Intel Pentium E5200 |
1.529 2.446 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
1.243 2.069 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
1.138 1.833 |
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.
| Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score | |
|---|---|
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ |
322 599 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ |
238 443 |
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ |
217 397 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality.
Equivalence:
Intel Pentium E5200 AMD equivalent
Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ — Marvel’s Avengers with R5 Benchmarks 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K Comparison
R5 with
Intel Pentium G3220 @ 3.00GHz
Marvel’s Avengers
R5 with
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+
Pentium G3220
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+
Multi-Thread Performance
3135 Pts
1383 Pts
Single-Thread Performance
1742 Pts
809 Pts
Marvel’s Avengers
Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ in Marvel’s Avengers using R5 — CPU Performance comparison at Ultra, High, Medium, and Low Quality Settings with 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K resolutions
Pentium G3220
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+
Ultra Quality
| Resolution | Frames Per Second |
|---|---|
| 1080p |
5.
|
| 1080p |
5.5 FPS
|
| 1080p |
5.5 FPS
|
| 1440p |
3.9 FPS
|
| 1440p |
3.9 FPS
|
| 1440p |
3.9 FPS
|
| 2160p |
2.0 FPS
|
| 2160p |
2.0 FPS
|
| 2160p |
2.0 FPS
|
| w1440p |
3.2 FPS
|
| w1440p |
3.2 FPS
|
| w1440p |
3.
|
5 FPS
2 FPSHigh Quality
| Resolution | Frames Per Second |
|---|---|
| 1080p |
12.7 FPS
|
| 1080p |
12.7 FPS
|
| 1080p |
12.7 FPS
|
| 1440p |
9.3 FPS
|
| 1440p |
9.3 FPS
|
| 1440p |
9.3 FPS
|
| 2160p |
5.1 FPS
|
| 2160p |
5.1 FPS
|
| 2160p |
5.
|
| w1440p |
7.8 FPS
|
| w1440p |
7.8 FPS
|
| w1440p |
7.8 FPS
|
1 FPSMedium Quality
| Resolution | Frames Per Second |
|---|---|
| 1080p |
19.8 FPS
|
| 1080p |
19.8 FPS
|
| 1080p |
19.8 FPS
|
| 1440p |
14.7 FPS
|
| 1440p |
14.7 FPS
|
| 1440p |
14.
|
| 2160p |
8.2 FPS
|
| 2160p |
8.2 FPS
|
| 2160p |
8.2 FPS
|
| w1440p |
12.4 FPS
|
| w1440p |
12.4 FPS
|
| w1440p |
12.4 FPS
|
7 FPSLow Quality
| Resolution | Frames Per Second |
|---|---|
| 1080p |
34.1 FPS
|
| 1080p |
34.1 FPS
|
| 1080p |
34.
|
| 1440p |
25.5 FPS
|
| 1440p |
25.5 FPS
|
| 1440p |
25.5 FPS
|
| 2160p |
14.4 FPS
|
| 2160p |
14.4 FPS
|
| 2160p |
14.4 FPS
|
| w1440p |
21.6 FPS
|
| w1440p |
21.6 FPS
|
| w1440p |
21.6 FPS
|
1 FPSPentium G3220
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+
Compare Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ specifications
Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ Architecture
| Pentium G3220 | Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ |
|---|
Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ Cache
| Pentium G3220 | Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ |
|---|
Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ Cores
| Pentium G3220 | Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ |
|---|
Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ Features
| Pentium G3220 | Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ |
|---|
Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ Performance
| Pentium G3220 | Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ |
|---|
Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ Physical
| Pentium G3220 | Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ |
|---|
Share Your Comments 81
Compare Pentium G3220 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ in more games
Elden Ring
2022
God of War
2022
Overwatch 2
2022
Forza Horizon 5
2021
Halo Infinite
2021
Battlefield 2042
2021
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla
2020
Microsoft Flight Simulator
2020
Valorant
2020
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
2020
Death Stranding
2020
Marvel’s Avengers
2020
Godfall
2020
Cyberpunk 2077
2020
Apex Legends
2019
Anthem
2019
Far Cry New Dawn
2019
Resident Evil 2
2019
Metro Exodus
2019
World War Z
2019
Gears of War 5
2019
F1 2019
2019
GreedFall
2019
Borderlands 3
2019
Call of Duty Modern Warfare
2019
Red Dead Redemption 2
2019
Need For Speed: Heat
2019
Forza Horizon 4
2018
Fallout 76
2018
Hitman 2
2018
Just Cause 4
2018
Monster Hunter: World
2018
Strange Brigade
2018
PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds
2017
Fortnite Battle Royale
2017
Need For Speed: Payback
2017
For Honor
2017
Project CARS 2
2017
Forza Motorsport 7
2017
Ashes of the Singularity
2016
Hitman
2016
Rise of the Tomb Raider
2016
The Division
2016
Overwatch
2016
Dishonored 2
2016
DiRT Rally
2015
Grand Theft Auto V
2015
The Witcher 3
2015
Total War: Attila
2015
Rocket League
2015
Need For Speed
2015
Project CARS
2015
Rainbow Six Siege
2015
Dragon Age: Inquisition
2014
Far Cry 4
2014
GRID Autosport
2014
Shadow of Mordor
2014
The Talos Principle
2014
Battlefield 4
2013
Crysis 3
2013
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
2012
League of Legends
2009
Minecraft
2009
Comparison of AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Intel Pentium 4 2.
4
Comparative analysis of AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Intel Pentium 4 2.4 processors according to all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Compatibility, Memory, Security and reliability, Technologies, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
versus
Intel Pentium 4 2.4
Benefits
Reasons to choose AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
- Newer processor, release date difference 4 year(s) 10 month(s) more run more applications at the same time: 2 vs 1
- A newer manufacturing process for the processor allows it to be more powerful, but with less power consumption: 90 nm vs 130 nm
- 16 times larger L1 cache means more data can be stored in it for quick access
| Release date | May 2006 vs April 2002 |
| Number of cores | 2 vs 1 |
| Process | 90 nm vs 130 nm |
| Level 1 cache | 128 KB vs 8 KB |
reasons to choose Intel Pentium 4 2.
4
- about 9% more clock frequency: 2.4 GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ
- is about 48% less energy consumption: 59.8 WATT VS 89 WATT
| maximum frequency | 2.4 GHz vs 2.2 GHz |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 59.8 Watt vs 89 Watt |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
CPU 2: Intel Pentium 4 2.4
| Name | AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | Intel Pentium 4 2.4 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 0 | |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 1285 | |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 219 | |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 398 |
Performance comparison
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | Intel Pentium 4 2. 4 |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture name | Manchester | Northwood | |
| Production date | May 2006 | April 2002 | |
| Price at first issue date | $309 | ||
| Place in the ranking | 3004 | not rated | |
| Price now | $179.95 | ||
| Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 1.80 | ||
| Applicability | Desktop | Desktop | |
| Series | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor | ||
| Status | Discontinued | ||
| Support 64 bit | |||
| Crystal area | 156mm | 131 mm2 | |
| Level 1 cache | 128KB | 8KB | |
| Level 2 cache | 512KB | 512KB | |
| Process | 90nm | 130nm | |
| Maximum frequency | 2. 2 GHz |
2.4 GHz | |
| Number of cores | 2 | 1 | |
| Number of transistors | 154 million | 55 million | |
| Base frequency | 2.40 GHz | ||
| Bus Speed | 400 MHz FSB | ||
| Maximum core temperature | 71°C | ||
| Permissible core voltage | 1.350V-1.430V | ||
| Maximum number of processors in configuration | 1 | 1 | |
| Supported sockets | 939 | PPGA478 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 59. 8 Watt |
|
| Low Halogen Options Available | |||
| Package Size | 35mm x 35mm | ||
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | ||
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | |||
| Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) | |||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology | |||
| Parity FSB | |||
| Idle States | |||
| Intel 64 | |||
| Intel® Demand Based Switching | |||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology | |||
| Intel® Turbo Boost Technology | |||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | |||
Data on the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5800+ system tire — 1000 MHZ 16 -by Hypertransport (2. 0 GT/S) |
Data on Intel Pentium M 710 — 400 MHz | Pentium M 710 loses a lot in terms of number of cores, 1 vs. 2 | |
| 0032 | Pentium M 710 is very much inferior in terms of the number of threads, 1 vs. 2 | ||
| Athlon 64 X2 5800+ is very much ahead in terms of manufacturability, its technical process is 65 nanometers, against 90 nanometers for the rival Pentium M 710 | Pentium M 710 is less technologically advanced, since its process technology is significantly larger and is 90 nanometers | ||
| BT | Pentium M 710 has a serious superiority in terms of thermal discharge, its TDP is slightly lower than that of the competitor and reaches 21 watts | Athlon 64 x2 5800+ Supports the architecture X64 | N/A |
| Technology or instruction name | AMD Athlon 64 X2 5800+ | Intel Pentium M 710 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Halt mode | — | Stop mode. |
|
| Stop Grant mode | — | Energy saving status. | |
| Cool’n’Quiet | — | Coolness and silence. |
| Name of technology or instruction | AMD Athlon 64 X2 5800+ | Intel Pentium M 710 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMX (Multimedia Extensions) | — | Multimedia extensions. | |
| SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) | — | Streaming SIMD processor extension. | |
| SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) | — | Processor Streaming SIMD Extension 2. | |
| SSE3 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 3) | — | Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 3. |
|
| AMD64 | — | 64-bit microprocessor architecture developed by AMD. | |
| 3DNow! | — | Optional MMX extension for AMD processors. |
| Technology or instruction name | AMD Athlon 64 X2 5800+ | Intel Pentium M 710 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| EVP (Enhanced Virus Protection) | — | Improved virus protection. |
| Name of technology or instruction | AMD Athlon 64 X2 5800+ | Intel Pentium M 710 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMD-V | — | AMD-V Virtualization Technology. |
Benchmarks
Overall performance rating
The summary rating is calculated by the formula, taking into account indicators: test results in benchmarks, technology, socket, release year, frequency, architecture, number of cores and threads, temperature, instructions, and much more. The results of the overall rating showed that the Pentium M 710 processor is not much superior to its rival Athlon 64 X2 5800+. The Athlon 64 X2 5800+ processor itself managed to score 1152.61 points, slightly outperforming its competitor.
PassMark CPU Mark
Perhaps the most famous benchmark tester on the Internet. The benchmark has a wide range of tests for a large-scale assessment of the performance of a personal computer, including the CPU. Among them are game physics calculations, floating point calculations, encryption, compression, integer calculations, extended instruction checking, multi-threaded and single-threaded tests. In particular, it is possible to compare the results obtained with other configurations in the database.
All CPUs presented on our website have been tested by PassMark.
Cinebench 10 (32 bit) Single-threaded test
This benchmark for testing processors and video cards is outdated by now. Single-Core — uses only one rendering thread and one core in its test. It is possible to test multi-processor systems. The test is carried out in OS Mac, Windows. The main performance testing mode is working with light, simulated global illumination, spatial light sources, photorealistic rendering of a 3D scene, multilevel reflections, and procedural shaders. Uses the ray tracing method. Released by MAXON, it was based on the Cinema 4D 3D editor.
Cinebench 10 (32bit) Multi-thread test
Multi-Core version is another test method in Cinebench R10, which uses multi-thread and multi-core test method. It is important to note that the number of threads in this version of the program is limited to sixteen.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Multi-threaded test
64-bit version of the CINEBENCH R11.
5 benchmark — which has the ability to load the CPU at 100 percent, including all threads and cores. Unlike previous versions of the program, 64 threads will be used here.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
Excellent multifunctional Cinebench version 11.5 from Maxon. In tests, as before, the ray tracing process is used, a detailed 3D space is calculated with many crystalline and translucent and glass balls. In this case, Single-Core tests occur through the use of one thread and one core. His tests to this day have not lost their relevance. The result of the test is the «frames per second» value.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Multi-thread test
Multi-Thread Cinebench 15 will load your system to the full, demonstrating everything that it is capable of. The program is suitable for modern multi-threaded processors from Intel and AMD, as it can use 256 calculation threads. All threads and processor cores are used when rendering detailed 3D objects.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
Cinebench 15 is the most modern tester from the Finnish company Maxon today. In this version of the Single Core program, only one thread is involved in rendering. It tests the system: both video cards and CPU. For CPU, the result of the analysis will be the number of PTS points, and for video processors, the value of frames per second. FPS. A complex 3D scene is rendered with many light sources, highly detailed objects and reflections.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Multi-threaded test
This is a 64-bit multi-threaded Geekbench 4 benchmark. It is the wide multi-platform support for various operating systems and devices that makes Geekbench tests the most common now.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
Single-Core test uses 1 thread. This benchmark, like its earlier versions, runs on operating systems: Linux, Windows, Mac OS. The latest single-thread version of Geekbench 4 to date for testing laptops and desktops.
For the first time in this version of the program, smartphones on iOS and Android operating systems are also supported.
Geekbench 3 (32bit) Multi-Thread Benchmark
Multi-Thread Geekbench 3 — can allow you to put a big stress test on your PC and demonstrate how stable your system is.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Single-threaded test
The Geekbench cross-platform tester is usually used to test the system under Mac, but it can work on both Windows and Linux. The main purpose is to test the performance of processors. The 32-bit version of the test uses only one thread and one CPU core.
Geekbench 2
Seriously outdated version of the Geekbench 2 tester. Today there are more recent updates, the current fourth and fifth. On our site there are about two hundred CPU models that have test results in this program.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 1
This is a hands-on test of processor performance by transcoding HD video files to H.
264 or the so-called MPEG 4 x264 codec. This test is faster than Pass 2, because the calculation is performed at the same speed. Number of frames processed per second. is the test result. Ideal test for multi-core and multi-thread processors.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 2
This is a slightly different, slower test based on video file compression. You need to be aware that a real task is being simulated, and the x264 codec is used in a large number of encoders. The resulting value is also measured in frames per second. The result is a better quality video file. The same MPEG4 x264 codec is used, but the encoding is already done at a non-constant bit rate. Therefore, the test results really reflect the performance of the platform.
3DMark06 CPU
Benchmark for testing video system and processor. Created using the DirectX library by Futuremark. CPUs are tested in two ways: the game AI calculates the pathfinding, and the second test emulates the system using PhysX.
This test is very often used by overclockers and fans of overclocking the system and gamers.
3DMark Fire Strike Physics
We can say that approximately two hundred CPUs on our Internet resource have data in the 3DMark Physics test. It includes a math test that performs calculations in game physics.
WinRAR 4.0
Everyone knows the data archiver. The speed of RAR compression was checked by the algorithm; for this, huge volumes of random files were taken. The resulting speed during compression «kilobytes per second» — this is the result of the test. Checks were made under the control of the Windows operating system.
TrueCrypt AES
This is not really a tester, but the results of its use can give an estimate of the performance of the entire computer. It so happened that support for this project was terminated on May 28, 2014. It can fully function in Mac OS X, Linux and Windows operating systems. Our site presents the results of encryption speed in gigabytes per second using the AES algorithm.