CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4130 vs 6800K among desktop 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

Fire Strike

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?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

7.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD A10 6800K 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD A10 6800K  based on its overclocking.

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 Core i3 4130

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 4130

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 3 MB vs None Compared to all cpus, 3 MB l3 cache is just OK
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 43.88W vs 81.25W More than 45% lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year vs 24.09 $/year More than 45% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year vs 87.6 $/year More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD A10 6800K

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 6800K

Report a correction
Much 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
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Much higher clock speed 4.1 GHz vs 3.4 GHz More than 20% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.9 GHz vs 3.47 GHz More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
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
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 5.22 GHz vs 3.58 GHz More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Higher Maximum operating temperature 74 °C vs 72 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 4130 vs A10 6800K

CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i3 4130
7.77 mHash/s
A10 6800K
71.19 mHash/s

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i3 4130
1.08 fps
A10 6800K
0.91 fps

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated Data courtesy FutureMark

Core i3 4130
2,610
A10 6800K
3,066

Sky Diver Data courtesy FutureMark

Core i3 4130
2,403
A10 6800K
3,664

Cloud Gate Data courtesy FutureMark

Core i3 4130
4,736
A10 6800K
6,422

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4130
6,330
A10 6800K
6,592

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4130
2,982
A10 6800K
2,278

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4130
3,840,000 MB/s
A10 6800K
2,575,000 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 4130  vs
A10 6800K 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 4.1 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Is unlocked No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
ABM
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 54W 100W
Annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year 24.09 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year 87.6 $/year
Performance per watt 13.06 pt/W 5.95 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.88W 81.25W

details

Core i3 4130  vs
A10 6800K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
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 None
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 74°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.47 GHz 4.9 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.58 GHz 5.22 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 1,786.7 3,392.7
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.47 GHz 4.9 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD graphics 4400 Radeon™ HD 8670D
GPU clock speed 350 MHz 844 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-2133
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
Intel Core i3 4130
Report a correction
AMD A10 6800K
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 11 comments.
still I think i3 is more logical for most of people. Fast single\dual core perfomance(what most of people need) very low TDP(again what most of people need, the computer being quiet and not consume power like a monster), and not a high price. Sure if you want fast integrated graphics you should get AMD, but why really? If you aren't gonna play games or do 3D modelling, why do you need such fast graphics? on the other hand, if you are a serious gamer, integrated graphics won't be enough for you, and you'd better get a descrete card instead
AMD does not blow up Intel lol. It could be on-par with Intel in terms of daily usage, and gaming, sometimes, on i is just reasonably, slightly better. But, to work, I'd go for the i7 4770K
what u r saying is common sense which I agree to. An idiot regardless of being a fan or not, will only upgrade everytime once a new stuff is released. Like those who up-ed their phenom 1100T blk ed. to FX8150 and those upgraded their ivy bridge to haswells. I'd say that is about your research before buying. Smart people do think and research before they buy, regardless of brand (AMD or Intel, doesn't matter which side you support) You said Intel sucks your wallet dry, yeah, agreed, but they fulfilled the requirements for the price tag. To me, a product is expensive is because you did not get enough or exactly from what you pay for. That term "enough" I meant, varies individually. In my case, the APU A10, FX 8320 from AMD and or the i7 4770k is considered reasonably priced while the FX 8350, FX 9590 and any APUs apart from the A10, plus on the Intel side, i5 4440, i3 4130 are expensive, simply because the performance (TDP, temperature, logical performances, bla bla bla......) suck or either the price tag, itself is too damn expensive for that grade of stuff. Sorry if I had confused you, the "TDP" part I said is about your previous post, which you said, "What about the people that want a APU that can actually play games? The TDP is due to the much more powerful onboard graphics. Intel's graphics offerings are even more of a joke than AMD's APU's. What does that tell ya?" On that, with reference to my first post, I said, APU is a smarter choice (for gaming and daily uses) despite i3 thrashes the A10 in logical performances (single core) .
TDP part? All CPU's have a TDP Thermal Design Power. You really need to look at typical power consumption when comparing a CPU. Not only the TDP. It all depends how you use it. If you need a CPU that your going to be running @ 100% load 24/7 for a year straight and are worried about a high power bill. The intel CPU is your choice. But if all you do is game once and a while AMD has great chips. Intel is sucking you guys dry with sideways upgrades and adding useless onboard video to high end CPU's. Changing sockets every time a new CPU is released. Their making billions and laughing all the way to the bank. It's like buying a 2012 corvette and upgrading to a 2013 corvette because it has 6 more horsepower. How many of you intel Fanboys upgraded from a 3770 to a 4770? probably plenty.. Would you notice a difference between those two processors other than the newer one runs hotter?
AMD loses on benchmarks and press garbage but in real world, AMD blows up Intel.
before actually replying what u meant, pls, I remember clearly, there isn't a single unit of APU that eats up over 125W TDP. and do check what I said above, i3 thrashes 6800k in terms of logical performance but for gaming 6800k is a smarter choice. The TDP part is about another line, which, is created by AMD. We refer it as the "FX" series. Honestly, I do not think that is the APU line. My conclusion: if you are (any of those) tight-on-budget, wanted only a gaming and light working, and if you might not be the one that is paying utility bills AMD IS YOUR CHOICE. But, if you are, a performance seeker, wanted a high-performance-all-rounder, maybe paying part of or all the utility bills, no problem on budget, had trauma working with AMD processors (less likely, but only phobia), INTEL IS THE THING.
What about the people that want a APU that can actually play games? The TDP is due to the much more powerful onboard graphics. Intel's graphics offerings are even more of a joke than AMD's APU's. What does that tell ya?
ahh yes, I forgot, AMD fanboys, I don't think a 220W TDP, air cooling defective, roared at 5GHz processor is what you call, a competitor for a less than 100w TDP and air-cooling-okay, needn't to be 5GHz processor.
i3 thrashes 6800k in logical performance (clock speed to performance ratio and single core performance) However I'd chose the 6800k over i3 simply because, no matter how powerful it is, a dual core is and will always be only a dual core and for gaming, without any seperate gpu, the 6800k seems a more sensible choice. (2133MHz RAM recommended but still could run well on a 1600MHz RAM) and if I want to work, I'd select a FX8320 (O.C to 8350 stats or slightly higher) or a 4770K which is the forever dream of AMD
HERP DERP! AMD WINS AUTOMATICALLY CAUSE ITS 3 DOLLARS CHEAPER!!
a mindfuck from both sides :S
comments powered by Disqus