CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3470 vs 5200


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?



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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 3470

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3470

Report a correction
Much higher turbo clock speed 3.6 GHz vs None Compared to all cpus, 3.6 GHz turbo clock speed is just OK
Significantly higher clock speed 3.2 GHz vs 2 GHz More than 60% higher clock speed
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,906 vs 781 Around 2.5x better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better 3DMark06 CPU score 6,179 vs 2,659.5 More than 2.2x better 3DMark06 CPU score
Newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 28 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly better performance per dollar 5.77 pt/$ vs 0.89 pt/$ More than 6.5x better performance per dollar
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.75 GHz vs 2 GHz Around 90% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 10,031 vs 3,436 Around 3x better geekbench (64-bit) score
Better PassMark score 6,607 vs 2,427 Around 2.8x better PassMark score
Slightly higher GPU clock speed 650 MHz vs 600 MHz Around 10% higher GPU clock speed
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.2 GHz vs 2 GHz More than 60% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD A6 5200

Reasons to consider the
AMD A6 5200

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 20.31W vs 86.05W 4.2x lower typical power consumption
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 90 °C vs 67.4 °C Around 35% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual home energy cost 6.02 $/year vs 31.22 $/year 5.2x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 21.9 $/year vs 84.62 $/year 3.9x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better performance per watt 13.38 pt/W vs 7.49 pt/W Around 80% better performance per watt
Newer May, 2013 vs Jun, 2012 Release date 11 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 3470 vs A6 5200

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 3470
A6 5200

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 3470
A6 5200


Core i5 3470
A6 5200

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

Core i5 3470
A6 5200

PassMark Data courtesy PassMark

Core i5 3470
A6 5200

PassMark (Single Core) Data courtesy PassMark

Core i5 3470
A6 5200

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i5 3470  vs
A6 5200 
Clock speed 3.2 GHz 2 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.6 GHz None
Cores Quad core Quad core
Is unlocked No No


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 77W 25W
Annual home energy cost 31.22 $/year 6.02 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 84.62 $/year 21.9 $/year
Performance per watt 7.49 pt/W 13.38 pt/W
Typical power consumption 86.05W 20.31W


Core i5 3470  vs
A6 5200 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 1 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 28 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 67.4°C Unknown - 90°C


Overclocked clock speed 3.75 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.2 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.75 GHz 2 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 2500 Radeon™ HD 8400
Latest DirectX 11.0 11.1
GPU clock speed 650 MHz 600 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Intel Core i5 3470
Report a correction
AMD A6 5200
Report a correction


Showing 12 comments.
hey, thanks man. Best regards.
nuh m8 dont be upset plz
an APU put out for low end laptops net books and mini-itx subsystems vs a full blown desktop CPU....crackheads comparing mismatches and bragging about results.
You DO know that it only uses that much power when under load? Otherwise it's about 5-8W for the whole processor package in idle (at least with a 4.0ghz i5-3550) with iGPU on. With dedicated video card, it's less. And it can be easily cooled with a passive air cooler. And, yeah, the performance is... heh, AMD, really?
One thing that you forgot to say Cpuboss is that the AMD processor has a much better Integrated graphics :)
The funny thing is that if the Intel was the less energy consumer it would have won against the AMD like it always does on this page.
Bro are you kidding me? I can run those programs with an Intel Celeron dual core t1400 with Intel 965 express chipset on my laptop! It will run those programs really really good!! expect the best :D i would recommend having at least 4gb of ram to use vegas. i have 2gb and vegas gets laggy sometimes.
I believe, as a home user I can't notice any difference
HEllo, do yu think this processor with amd 8400 video card will run programs such as corel draw, photoshop, vegas?
Although I doubt that Intel/MS skewed the reviews, I like the idea that the AMD product is more energy efficient. I've done some side-by-side comparisons and although the clock speeds differ, while doing comparable applications, I could not see any significant difference. I'm probably going to go with AMD this time around although I've zilch against Intel or MS EXCEPT that it irks the blazes out of me that I have to sign into my own machine with 8, 8.1.
What about the fact the the MS C++ Compiler deliberately builds more effective code when it detects GenuineIntel processes? Very bias article probably indirectly funded my Intel/MS.
So... I believe for everyday home use in this case - AMD is clear winner! And with that power consumption AMD will last... and last... and last... and last....
comments powered by Disqus