CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3220 vs 5550M

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU), 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

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 2.1 GHz More than 55% 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
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,764 vs 1,006 More than 75% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better 3DMark11 physics score 4,030 vs 2,400 Around 70% better 3DMark11 physics score
Better 3DMark06 CPU score 4,019 vs 2,795 Around 45% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 5,360 vs 3,228 More than 65% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better PassMark score 4,229 vs 2,995 More than 40% better PassMark score
Front view of AMD A8 5550M

Reasons to consider the
AMD A8 5550M

Report a correction
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
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Much higher Maximum Operating Temperature 105 °C vs 65.3 °C More than 60% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 44.69W More than 35% lower typical power consumption
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Marginally newer Mar, 2013 vs Sep, 2012 Release date 6 months later
Lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 48.18 $/year More than 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 13.25 $/year More than 35% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3220 vs A8 5550M

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i3 3220
5,360
A8 5550M
3,228

GeekBench

Core i3 3220
8,919
A8 5550M
3,228

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core i3 3220
4,030
A8 5550M
2,400
Core i3 3220 A8 5550M @ community.futuremark.com

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

Core i3 3220
4,019
A8 5550M
2,795

Passmark

Core i3 3220
4,229
A8 5550M
2,995
Core i3 3220 A8 5550M @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i3 3220
1,764
A8 5550M
1,006

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 3220  vs
A8 5550M 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 2.1 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
SSE4
SSE4a
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 55W 35W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 10.43 pt/W 11.23 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 28.44W

details

Core i3 3220  vs
A8 5550M 
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 0.5 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 65.3°C Unknown - 105°C

gpu

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 2500 Radeon™ HD 8550G
Intel Core i3 3220
Report a correction
AMD A8 5550M
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus