CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3210M vs 4600M

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU), Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Features

How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product?

Features and specifications that differ between products

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Features

Winner
Intel Core i5 3210M 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 3210M  based on its .

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

Intel Core i5 3210M

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i5 3210M

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 3210M

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3210M

Report a correction
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
Higher clock speed 2.5 GHz vs 2.3 GHz Around 10% higher clock speed
Much more l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 6x more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,524 vs 1,008 More than 50% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better 3DMark11 physics score 3,130 vs 2,220 More than 40% better 3DMark11 physics score
Higher Maximum Operating Temperature 105 °C vs 100 °C 5% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 4,953 vs 3,688 Around 35% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better 3DMark06 CPU score 3,553 vs 2,865.5 Around 25% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Slightly better PassMark score 3,823 vs 3,174 More than 20% better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.5 GHz vs 2.3 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD A10 4600M

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 4600M

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 1 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better performance per dollar 7.83 pt/$ vs 2.24 pt/$ Around 3.5x better performance per dollar
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 3210M vs A10 4600M

GeekBench (32-bit)

A10 4600M
3,688

GeekBench (64-bit)

A10 4600M
5,183

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

A10 4600M
2,220
Core i5 3210M A10 4600M @ community.futuremark.com

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

A10 4600M
2,865.5

Passmark

A10 4600M
3,174
Core i5 3210M A10 4600M @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

A10 4600M
1,008

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 3210M  vs
A10 4600M 
Clock speed 2.5 GHz 2.3 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.1 GHz 3.2 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

gpu

GPU GPU GPU
Label HD 4000 Radeon™ HD 7660G
Latest DirectX 11.0 11.0

details

Core i5 3210M  vs
A10 4600M 
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 1 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 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 - 105°C Unknown - 100°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.86 GHz 3.01 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.5 GHz 2.3 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.86 GHz 3.01 GHz

power consumption

TDP 35W 35W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 8.43 $/year
Performance per watt 14.41 pt/W 11.19 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 28.44W
Intel Core i5 3210M
Report a correction
AMD A10 4600M
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus