CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3470 vs 5200

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 i5 3470

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3470

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 3.2 GHz vs 2 GHz More than 60% higher clock speed
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 28 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,906 vs 726 Around 2.8x better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better 3DMark06 CPU score 6,179 vs 2,659.5 More than 2.2x better 3DMark06 CPU score
Significantly better geekbench (32-bit) score 9,265 vs 3,292 More than 2.8x better geekbench (32-bit) score
Significantly better PassMark score 6,607 vs 2,437 Around 2.8x better PassMark score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.82 GHz vs 2 GHz More than 90% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.98 GHz vs 2 GHz Around 2x 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
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Better performance per watt 14.22 pt/W vs 7.94 pt/W Around 80% better performance per watt
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

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 3470 vs A6 5200

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i5 3470
9,265
A6 5200
3,292

GeekBench

Core i5 3470
12,141
A6 5200
3,292

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

Core i5 3470
6,179
A6 5200
2,659.5

Passmark

Core i5 3470
6,607
A6 5200
2,437
Core i5 3470 A6 5200 @ cpubenchmark.net
CineBench R11.5 returned a multicore CPU score of 5.67 for the newer CPU and 5.41 for the older one, with an even tighter gap present between the two when we only used one CPU for the test (1.48 for the Core i5-2500K, 1.51 for the Core i5-3470).
Core i5 3470 | by PCMag (May, 2012)

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i5 3470
1,906
A6 5200
726

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 3470  vs
A6 5200 
Clock speed 3.2 GHz 2 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Is unlocked No No
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes No
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AES

gpu

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 2500 Radeon™ HD 8400
Latest DirectX 11.0 11.1

details

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

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.82 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.98 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.82 GHz 2 GHz

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 7.94 pt/W 14.22 pt/W
Typical power consumption 86.05W 20.31W
Intel Core i5 3470
Report a correction
AMD A6 5200
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 5 comments.
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