CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4700MQ vs 4600M

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU), Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Features

How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product?

Features and specifications that differ between products

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 i7 4700MQ

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4700MQ

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 6 MB vs 1 MB 6x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 6,872 vs 2,865.5 Around 2.5x better 3DMark06 CPU score
Much better 3DMark11 physics score 6,810 vs 2,220 More than 3x better 3DMark11 physics score
Much better PassMark score 7,869 vs 3,174 Around 2.5x better PassMark score
Significantly better geekbench (64-bit) score 11,782 vs 5,183 More than 2.2x better geekbench (64-bit) score
Slightly higher turbo clock speed 3.4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz More than 5% higher turbo clock speed
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,835 vs 1,008 More than 80% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much more l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 6x more l3 cache per core
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.74 GHz vs 3.01 GHz Around 25% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better performance per watt 21.43 pt/W vs 11.01 pt/W Around 95% better performance per watt
Marginally newer Jun, 2013 vs May, 2012 Release date over 1 years later
Front view of AMD A10 4600M

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 4600M

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 1 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better performance per dollar 7.7 pt/$ vs 2.66 pt/$ Around 3x better performance per dollar
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 38.19W More than 25% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 11.32 $/year More than 25% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4700MQ vs A10 4600M

GeekBench (32-bit)

A10 4600M
3,691

GeekBench (64-bit)

A10 4600M
5,183

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core i7 4700MQ A10 4600M @ community.futuremark.com

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

A10 4600M
2,865.5

Passmark

Core i7 4700MQ A10 4600M @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 4700MQ  vs
A10 4600M 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 2.3 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.4 GHz 3.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Is unlocked No No
Is hyperthreaded Yes No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AVX 2.0
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 Radeon™ HD 7660G

details

Core i7 4700MQ  vs
A10 4600M 
Threads 8 4
L2 cache 1 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 6 MB 1 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 100°C Unknown - 100°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.74 GHz 3.01 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.74 GHz 3.01 GHz

power consumption

TDP 47W 35W
Annual home energy cost 11.32 $/year 8.43 $/year
Performance per watt 21.43 pt/W 11.01 pt/W
Typical power consumption 38.19W 28.44W
Intel Core i7 4700MQ
Report a correction
AMD A10 4600M
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus