CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3220 vs 3620

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

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

No winner declared

Too close to call

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 Core i3 3220

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 3220

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 2.5 GHz More than 30% higher clock speed
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 1 MB 3x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,764 vs 795 Around 2.2x better PassMark (Single core) score
Much more l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 6x more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark score 4,229 vs 2,889 More than 45% better PassMark score
Better performance per watt 10.35 pt/W vs 6.53 pt/W Around 60% better performance per watt
Slightly lower typical power consumption 44.69W vs 52.81W More than 15% lower typical power consumption
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 5,363 vs 4,035 Around 35% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Marginally newer Sep, 2012 vs Jan, 2012 Release date 7 months later
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
Front view of AMD A6 3620

Reasons to consider the
AMD A6 3620

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 4 MB vs 0.5 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Higher Maximum Operating Temperature 70.5 °C vs 65.3 °C Around 10% higher Maximum Operating Temperature

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3220 vs A6 3620

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i3 3220
5,363
A6 3620
4,035

GeekBench

Core i3 3220
8,919
A6 3620
4,374

Passmark

Core i3 3220
4,229
A6 3620
2,889
Core i3 3220 A6 3620 @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i3 3220
1,764
A6 3620
795

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 3220  vs
A6 3620 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 2.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad 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
SSE4a
3DNow!
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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 10.35 pt/W 6.53 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 52.81W

details

Core i3 3220  vs
A6 3620 
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 0.5 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB 1 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 - 70.5°C

gpu

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 2500 Radeon™ HD 6530D
Intel Core i3 3220
Report a correction
AMD A6 3620
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus