CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3650 vs TL-58

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Value

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value

Winner
AMD A6 3650 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD A6 3650  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

AMD A6 3650

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD A6 3650

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD A6 3650

Reasons to consider the
AMD A6 3650

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 32 nms vs 90 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 1.9 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
More l2 cache 4 MB vs 1 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.49 GHz vs 2.14 GHz Around 65% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 6,340 vs 2,560 Around 2.5x better geekbench (64-bit) score
Better PassMark (Single core) score 904 vs 551 Around 65% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better PassMark score 3,225 vs 952 Around 3.5x better PassMark score
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.58 GHz vs 1.9 GHz Around 90% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD Turion 64 X2 technology TL-58

Reasons to consider the
AMD Turion 64 X2 technology TL-58

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 105.55W 3.7x lower typical power consumption
Significantly higher Maximum Operating Temperature 95 °C vs 72.7 °C More than 30% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Much lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 37.37 $/year 4.4x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 105.12 $/year 3.4x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of A6 3650 vs Turion 64 X2 technology TL-58

Passmark

Benchmark Results: Running Cinebench R11.5 in 64-bit mode shows that Intel has better x86 CPU performance.
A6 3650 | by Legit Reviews (Jul, 2011)

Passmark (Single Core)

At this clock speed we could run Hyper Pi, 3DMark Vantage and even Prime95 without hitting and blue screens.
A6 3650 | by Legit Reviews (Jul, 2011)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

A6 3650  vs
Turion 64 X2 technology TL-58 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 1.9 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE3
SSE2
SSE4a
3DNow!

power consumption

TDP 100W 35W
Annual home energy cost 37.37 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 105.12 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 3.86 pt/W 5.42 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.55W 28.44W

details

A6 3650  vs
Turion 64 X2 technology TL-58 
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 4 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nms 90 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.7°C Unknown - 95°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.49 GHz 2.14 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.58 GHz 1.9 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.49 GHz 2.14 GHz
AMD A6 3650
Report a correction
AMD Turion 64 X2 technology TL-58
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus