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 4200M

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i5 4200M

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4200M

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4200M

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 better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 5,342 vs 761 More than 7x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better performance per watt 16.78 pt/W vs 0.49 pt/W Around 34.2x better performance per watt
Much lower typical power consumption 30.06W vs 72.31W 2.4x lower typical power consumption
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 5,610 vs 1,422 Around 4x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,646 vs 498 More than 3.2x better PassMark (Single core) score
Much more l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 0 MB/core Compared to all cpus, 1.5 MB/core l3 cache per core is just OK
Newer Oct, 2013 vs Jun, 2004 Release date over 9 years later
More l3 cache 3 MB vs 0 MB Compared to all cpus, 3 MB l3 cache is just OK
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C vs 70 °C Around 45% 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 8.91 $/year vs 21.44 $/year 2.4x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 32.41 $/year vs 77.96 $/year 2.4x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD Athlon 3700+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon 3700+

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

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4200M vs Athlon 3700+

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4200M
3,245,000 MB/s
Athlon 3700+
192.7 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 4200M  vs
Athlon 3700+ 
Clock speed 2.5 GHz 2.4 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 37W 89W
Annual home energy cost 8.91 $/year 21.44 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 32.41 $/year 77.96 $/year
Performance per watt 16.78 pt/W 0.49 pt/W
Typical power consumption 30.06W 72.31W

details

Core i5 4200M  vs
Athlon 3700+ 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 1
L2 cache 0.5 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB 0 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 0 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 130 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 100°C Unknown - 70°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.02 GHz 2.87 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.5 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.02 GHz 2.87 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 400 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz N/A
Intel Core i5 4200M
Report a correction
AMD Athlon 3700+
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus