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 4200U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4200U

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Intel Core i5 4200U vs the AMD A8 6410.

Front view of AMD A8 6410

Reasons to consider the
AMD A8 6410

Report a correction
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4200U vs A8 6410

CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i5 4200U
11.53 mHash/s
A8 6410
24.62 mHash/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)

Core i5 4200U
10.62 mPixels/s
A8 6410
4.42 mPixels/s

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i5 4200U
1.18 fps
A8 6410
0.45 fps

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

A8 6410

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

A8 6410

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4200U
3,015,000 MB/s
A8 6410
1,120,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

A8 6410

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i5 4200U  vs
A8 6410 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 2 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.6 GHz 2.4 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Is unlocked No No


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type


Core i5 4200U  vs
A8 6410 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 0.5 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 - 100°C Unknown - 71.3°C

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 4400 Radeon R5 series
GPU clock speed 200 MHz 800 MHz

power consumption

TDP 15W 15W
Annual home energy cost 3.61 $/year 3.61 $/year
Performance per watt 38.06 pt/W 22.75 pt/W
Typical power consumption 12.19W 12.19W
Intel Core i5 4200U
Report a correction
AMD A8 6410
Report a correction


Showing 25 comments.
I have now bought 4 amd computers. They all last for years. My 2rd one burnt out 2 nights ago after 6 years service [mainly torrents past 2 years] the 3rd one is my main computer [after lightning strike it crashed after 4 months, but the shop fixed it under warranty]. 4th one i bought 2 months ago for my girlfriend as a laptop. My experience with intel computers. usually 12 month warranty. 1st one died just after warranty ran out. 2nd one i decided not to keep on all the time to make it last. used it maybe 4 hours a day. it died just after the warranty ran out as well. I prefer AMD but bought another Intel last night as it was cheaper, to replace torrent computer. If the price is right i'd always take an AMD.
You do realize APU's dont use hbm... They use desktop ram
Intel is smashing AMD in 2 in 1's. The 6th generation i7 at 2.5, Intel TurboBoost 3.1is hard for AMD match FX laptop chip is close.
Anyone can find all of this info on Intel Ark. Most of my laptops are AMD and they are great also.
All Intel chips with a U at the end are duo core four thread, desktop is quad core. The new 6th generation u is 2.3 base and 2.8 Intel TurboBoost. Great technology!
Dearly sorry for whatever you feel must he compensated for. Anyway the i3 is known as the go to budget solution due to it's directx advantate. DX11 and below looked deepest into your first two cores. And apparently there's a world of gamers who would care to disagree, because every laptop with an I7 below skylake is running a dual core hyperthreaded cpu , a pretend I7 but its an I3... So obviously this duality that you need a CPU the same price as your GPU (which is shit budgeting BTW, the bulk always needs to go to your GPU) is unreliable.the fact is, $200 tends to be around the ceiling for a normal gamer, the 4790k is the cookie cutter go to for PC builders sure, but the overkill there is purely to show off more than often. Building a 1.5 grand PC today is optimal for 4k gaming, a trend your GPU is not up for at all BTW. In 3 years 4k will be achievable on a budget. Its how 1080p was, once considered a rough resolution to hit and now $500 gaming PCs (they are full fledge gaming rigs ass, an and r9 380 and a 4460, with just a few small compromises is around that price is ideal for 1080p gaming) is a good point. Besides are you that influenced by the trend that you want an I5 4690k Mr. Bigbucks? The 6600k is out. Its just not a cookie cutter yet for the average gamer.
who buys an I3 for gaming???? who buys any, junk, for gaming? cheap ppl, actual ppl that want to do some good gaming go intel and spend 200+ anything less, you can get at a local store on a 500 dollar pc, idc what ppl say 500 is NOT a gaming pc, regaurdless if it can play you games in medium high quality whatever your ploaying at, you want a gaming pc your easily paying over 1k, im building my computer now, with the I5 4690K radeon r9 390. 16 gb ram, theres now way in hell i would ever go AMD, to save a few dollars. you want to save money, go amd, you want a powerfull cpu, go intel everytime, your buying a computer under 800 dollars, go amd, doesnt really matter, you want something over 1k-1.5k go intel everytime,
You didn't read that well at all...that $110 CPU kept up with and in some cases beat the I5 with over $70 difference...and it's unlocked to over clock. A feature the I5 below $200 does not have. That's a thorough victory for the FX users. The minor different in performance at base clocks is irrelevant considering the FX has a hell of a OC ability.
Do you even look at CPUs around and below that price!? The FX series has been spanking Intel 2 years after its release. The only comparable CPUs Intel has to offer is the 4690k and 4670k to beat them. AMD has been devastating Intel all the way up until the $180 range. The Kaveri apus are more powerful than an I3 and a gtx 750 or below at $129! The Intel core I3 alone is nearly that. The FX6300 had the best overclockability seen for a budget CPU, capable of smacking Intel around at lower prices. Face it little Intel fanboys, Intel is only good at the above $200 range, take it from someone with a 4460 and an A8 and not seeing much different.
wtf are you smoking? crack??? cuz that link clearly shows intell better, idk wtf your looking at but get off the crack buddy
You two processors the EXACT same privce and intel will CRUSH anything above a 175$ processor. oh my bad, AMD might be lower wattage HAHAHAH
No YOU don't be an idiot. Your brand loyalty is as dumbfounding as football fantasies. I use an Intel core I5 4460 and an AMD A8 7600 in both gaming rigs and for a small period of time I used the GTX 960 between them both until my second GPU story! No difference in the steam games. Wanna know something cute fanboy, search core I5 4460 vs A8 7600 on CPU boss and enjoy the results. Intel NEVER gives bang for the buck, and the one time they did was unlocking a pentium and after it threatened sales of the I3 they double crossed their customers and locked it back with a microcode in W10. Intel CPUs are good no doubt, but I'm sick of little fanboys diefying the corporation. Its not like they are constantly in lowsuits for their under the table dealings to slow AMD such as the biggest known lawsuit to reduce AMD benchmarks with a microcode. Bottom line, always get the best CPU in the price range you want. If AMD suits that don't go out of your way to buy Intel, or vice versa.
if your using intergrated graphics AT ALL your not a fucking gamer. go get your ass a fuckign video CARD than we'll talk. cheap ass
amd owns the low end side of computers, and intell owns the high end
wtf your fuckign stupid, intell owns that high end market. RAPES any AMD, all AMD has is low end peices of shit that run pretty good for being 200-600 dollars. once you get out of that price range. intell wins everytime. i dont give a shit what the numbers say, go buy to of the same pcs and play a game on each, youll seee amd sucks ass
yea hes fuckign high, i have another low end A8 computer i bought for school, and that pice of shit cant run ANY games, hes a fucking idiot.
how about you buy two different pc's one with intell and one with AMD and se if you can tell a difference. i bought (2) of the EXACT same laptops. one with a 350$ intell processor and one with a 350$ AMD, everythign else was the EXACT same, everything. the AMD was cleary 20% slower it was rediculous i ended uip sending it back with another intell processor in it. AMD is better for LOW END computers and laptop... LOW END.... Intell is better for HIGH END computers and laptops. everybody knows that, dont be an idiot.
The mobile processors are, yeah. Even some of the i7 mobile chips are. The i7 mobile chips that are 28w TDP or higher have quad-core processing. Seems to me the laptops that feature them are noticeably more expensive though.
Bunch of fanboys with no clue. AMD is more multi threaded performance for less money, Intel is more single threaded performance for less watts. That's the difference.
Das pena fanboy de intel, suicidate.
Pretty dirty and slimy for most new Intel Core i5 sixth generation to be duo core processors.
super dude awesome question
Sure! Ableton 9 merely requires a CPU with more than 1 core to run smoothly, larger projects tend to eat up more RAM than anything else.
Why cpuboss sides with intel I will never know but this is common knowledge. Ive seen AMD beat intel by a savage margin (see AMD FX6350 vs intel core I5 4460 ) look at the benchmarks. yet somehow they are "equal" in performance, and the intel was rated the better buy? I do come here for realistic information, but the cpuboss comparisons are as biased as a popularity contest among cheerleaders.
would this A8 be good for music production? Like Ableton Live 9?
comments powered by Disqus