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 6200U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 6200U

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 28 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Slightly more l3 cache 3 MB vs None Compared to all cpus, 3 MB l3 cache is just OK
Front view of AMD A10 7th Gen A10-9600P

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 7th Gen A10-9600P

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 2 MB vs 0.5 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Higher turbo clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 2.8 GHz Around 20% higher turbo clock speed
Much higher GPU clock speed 720 MHz vs 300 MHz Around 2.5x higher GPU clock speed
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once

Features Key features of the Core i5 6200U  vs A10 7th Gen A10-9600P 

clock speed

turbo clock speed

L2 cache

gpu clock speed

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 6200U  vs
A10 7th Gen A10-9600P 
Clock speed 2.3 GHz 2.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.8 GHz 3.3 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Is unlocked No No

features

Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
FMA4
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
AVX 2.0

details

Core i5 6200U  vs
A10 7th Gen A10-9600P 
L2 cache 0.5 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB None
Manufacture process 14 nm 28 nm

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 520 Radeon™ R5
GPU clock speed 300 MHz 720 MHz

power consumption

Typical power consumption 12.19W N/A
Intel Core i5 6200U
Report a correction
AMD A10 7th Gen A10-9600P
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 8 comments.
no
Ryzen 5????
LMAO I have worked in IT for more than 5 years. Been a hobbyist my whole life. Intels, since about 2011 have been SLAYING AMD chips. They use less power, generate less heat, and perform much faster. Lotterally zero reason to choose AMD before ryzen other than price.
do you think this a10 its enough for autocad and some archi programs as a universitary student ? the configuration will be in a HP PAVILION 15-AW002LA A10-9600P 2.4/16GB/1TB/15.6''/DVD/W10
Intel are way too useless for me. It's useless. Cost much but dead much. I've been using AMD since 2005 but most* of my PC and Laptops running AMD are still working as what they are. While the Intel's I used back then up until now are useless and crap. From the bottom generation up to Now's generation, Intel's way to expensive but way too crappy. So sorry INTEL FANBOYS. Intel for me is useless. AMD is slow in times of clock speeds but AMD is more reliable than Intel. *all of my AMD powered gadgets + (Intel Powered = Junk Shop)
You do realize they are comparing mobile processors not "regular" series CPUs, right? Also the 6200U is a standard Intel processor when released with many laptops (in 2016) and the same for the AMD processor. Tho a better comparison would be the 6267U. Still the AMD would beat it with 4 cores vs 2 (as all the U lines have; would have to get an HQ i5 to even have 4 cores).
The i5 used for this comparison is a weak dual core laptop model. Not the typical flagship chip. Compare the A10 to any of the regular i5 series cpus, and they will outperform the A10 every time. The U series isn't as good. They are throttled. They use very little power, generate very little heat, and as a result they naturally suffer in the performance dept.
I'm typing on the I-5 Processor herein referenced in this article. I like it. HOWEVER, To the left of me is the Amd A10-9600p which I just repaired. I LOVE IT. It's a no-brainer to me, the A10-9600p is the clear winner in regards to speed in which it responds to my commands. ClickDoneClickDoneClickClickDone End of story.
comments powered by Disqus