Winner
Intel Core i3 3220
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i3 3220 based on its .
See full details Intel Core i3 3220 vs AMD A4 5300 |
Released September, 2012
Intel Core i3 3220
- 3.3 GHz
- Dual core
7.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i3 3220
 | Is hyperthreaded Yes | | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms |
| | More l3 cache 3 MB | | Much more l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core |
VS
Released October, 2012
AMD A4 5300
- 3.4 GHz
- Dual core
6.7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD A4 5300
| | Much better performance per dollar 8.01 pt/$ | | Slightly more l2 cache 1 MB |
| | Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.34 GHz | | Higher Maximum Operating Temperature 70 °C |
Back in the 90s, desktop computers used to be bulky and consume a lot of power. However, recent advances in technology have enabled CPUs to run economical and yet powerful at the same time. For this matchup, we’re comparing two such desktop processors: the Intel Core i3 3220 versus the AMD A4 5300.
The 3220 is part of the Core i3 series, which is Intel’s entry level Dual Core line geared towards excellent performance. It’s clocked at 3.3 GHz with 4 threads, 3MB cache, and HD 2500 integrated graphics. These are decent specs -- and because it’s hyperthreaded, users will be able to run multiple programs smoothly; but graphics-wise, it’s not suitable for gaming. This entire package consumes only 55W TDP of power.
In contrast is the 5300, which is part of AMD’s Accelerated Processing Unit (APU). The APU’s unique feature is its beefy GPU, which performs better than Intel’s integrated graphics. It can play games at stock settings without needing to buy a separate graphics card. It has a clock speed of 3.4 GHz, with 2 threads and 1 MB cache. However, a trade-off is that it has consumes slightly more power at 65W TDP.
Looking at the benchmarks, the 3220 was able to dominate against the 5300, thanks to its higher thread count and cache. It led by 22% in 3DMark11 physics, 37% in the Single Core performance test and an amazing 104% in the PassMark benchmark. However, keep in mind that the 3220 is around $70 more expensive than the 5300.
In conclusion, if you’re after a capable graphics solution for a great price, then consider the AMD A4 5300. But if you’re looking for exceptional performance and power consumption, we recommend the Intel Core i3 3220.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3220 vs 5300
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Passmark (Single Core) | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core i3 3220CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newer manufacturing process | 22 nms | vs | 32 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| More l3 cache | 3 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 6x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 6x more l3 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,764 | vs | 1,274 | Around 40% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Better PassMark score | 4,229 | vs | 2,045 | More than 2x better PassMark score | |||
| Better geekbench (32-bit) score | 5,361 | vs | 2,739 | More than 95% better geekbench (32-bit) score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 10.43 pt/W | vs | 6.15 pt/W | Around 70% better performance per watt | |||
| Slightly lower typical power consumption | 44.69W | vs | 52.81W | More than 15% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Slightly better 3DMark11 physics score | 4,030 | vs | 3,250 | Around 25% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 48.18 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Slightly lower annual home energy cost | 13.25 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | More than 15% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much better performance per dollar | 8.01 pt/$ | vs | 4.59 pt/$ | Around 75% better performance per dollar | |||
| Slightly 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 | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.34 GHz | vs | 3.45 GHz | More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Higher Maximum Operating Temperature | 70 °C | vs | 65.3 °C | More than 5% higher Maximum Operating Temperature | |||
| More l2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.89 GHz | vs | 3.53 GHz | Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3220 vs A4 5300
GeekBench (32-bit)
GeekBench
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
Passmark
Passmark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i3 3220 | vs | A4 5300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 3.4 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Is unlocked | No | No | |
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | GPU | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 2500 | Radeon™ HD 7480D | |
details | Core i3 3220 | vs | A4 5300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 4 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 3 MB | 0.5 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 65.3°C | Unknown - 70°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 50 | 5 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.45 GHz | 4.34 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.53 GHz | 4.89 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.45 GHz | 4.34 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 55W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 13.25 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 48.18 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 10.43 pt/W | 6.15 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 44.69W | 52.81W | |
 Intel Core i3 3220  Report a correction |  AMD A4 5300 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $125 | ||
| Intel Core i3 3220 vs AMD E1 2500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | $120 | |
| Intel Core i3 3220 vs AMD FX 6300 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | $82 | |
| Intel Core i3 3220 vs Celeron J1900 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | $68 | |
| Intel Core i3 3220 vs Core2 Quad Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | ||
| Intel Core i3 3220 vs AMD A6 5200 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | $60 | |
| Intel Core i3 3220 vs Pentium G2020 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | $94 | |
| Intel Core i3 3220 vs Pentium J2900 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $309 | $330 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $309 | $195 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs 4790 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $309 | $340 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $160 | $235 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 4670K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | $393 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs i7 4500U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | ||
| AMD A10 5750M vs Intel Core i7 4700MQ | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs 4200M | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 1 comment.
