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 i5 3230M

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3230M

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 130 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 72.31W 2.5x lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 105 °C vs 70 °C 50% higher Maximum operating temperature
More threads 4 vs 1 3 more threads
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 21.44 $/year 2.5x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 77.96 $/year 2.5x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD Athlon 64 3000+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon 64 3000+

Report a correction
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
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core

Features Key features of the Core i5 3230M  vs Athlon 64 3000+ 

L2 cache

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 3230M  vs
Athlon 64 3000+ 
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
rPGA 988B
754

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES

details

Core i5 3230M  vs
Athlon 64 3000+ 
Threads 4 1
L2 cache 0.5 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 130 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 105°C Unknown - 70°C

power consumption

TDP 35W 89W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 21.44 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 77.96 $/year
Typical power consumption 28.44W 72.31W
Intel Core i5 3230M
Report a correction
AMD Athlon 64 3000+
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus