CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Z515 vs 4000 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

6.6

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Atom Z515 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Atom Z515  based on its power consumption.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Atom Z515

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom Z515

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 1.14W vs 52.81W 46.4x lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual home energy cost 0.34 $/year vs 15.66 $/year 46.4x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 1.23 $/year vs 56.94 $/year 46.4x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better performance per watt 6.36 pt/W vs 5.4 pt/W Around 20% better performance per watt
Front view of AMD A4 4000

Reasons to consider the
AMD A4 4000

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 1.2 GHz 2.5x higher clock speed
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.5 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Newer May, 2013 vs Apr, 2009 Release date over 4 years later
Better PassMark score 1,809 vs 218 More than 8.2x better PassMark score
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once

Benchmarks Real world tests of Atom Z515 vs A4 4000

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Atom Z515
218
A4 4000
1,809

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Atom Z515  vs
A4 4000 
Clock speed 1.2 GHz 3 GHz
Cores Single core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support No Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
ABM
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

details

Atom Z515  vs
A4 4000 
Architecture x86 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 0.5 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ HD 7480D
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
GPU clock speed N/A 720 MHz

power consumption

TDP 1.4W 65W
Annual home energy cost 0.34 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 1.23 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 6.36 pt/W 5.4 pt/W
Typical power consumption 1.14W 52.81W
Intel Atom Z515
Report a correction
AMD A4 4000
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus