Intel Itanium 9320 vs AMD A6 4455M |
Released February, 2010
Intel Itanium 9320
- 1.33 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9320
 | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 8 | | Much more l3 cache 16 MB |
| | Much more l3 cache per core 4 MB/core | | More threads 8 |
VS
Released May, 2012
AMD A6 4455M
- 2.1 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the AMD A6 4455M
| | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | | Significantly higher turbo clock speed 2.6 GHz |
| | Much lower typical power consumption 13.81W | | Significantly higher clock speed 2.1 GHz |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 8 | vs | 1 | 7 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much more l3 cache | 16 MB | vs | 1 MB | 16x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 8x more l3 cache per core | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 2 | 6 more threads | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 2.6 GHz | vs | 1.47 GHz | More than 75% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 13.81W | vs | 125.94W | 9.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 2.1 GHz | vs | 1.33 GHz | Around 60% higher clock speed | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | vs | 37.34 $/year | 9.1x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 14.89 $/year | vs | 135.78 $/year | 9.1x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Newer | May, 2012 | vs | Feb, 2010 | Release date over 2 years later | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Itanium 9320 vs A6 4455M
clock speed
turbo clock speed
L2 cache
L3 cache
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9320 | vs | A6 4455M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.33 GHz | 2.1 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1.47 GHz | 2.6 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 155W | 17W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 37.34 $/year | 4.1 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 135.78 $/year | 14.89 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 125.94W | 13.81W | |
details | Itanium 9320 | vs | A6 4455M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 8 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 16 MB | 1 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 8 | 1 | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Radeon™ HD 7500G | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | 11.0 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 327 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 424 MHz | |
 Intel Itanium 9320  Report a correction |  AMD A6 4455M Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $225 | ||
| 3217U vs 4455M | ||
 | VS | |
| $130 | ||
| 3210M vs 4455M | ||
 | VS | |
| $311 | ||
| 3517UE vs 4455M | ||
 | VS | |
| $225 | ||
| 3317U vs 4455M | ||
 | VS | |
| $225 | ||
| 3227U vs 4455M | ||
 | VS | |
| 4555M vs 4455M | ||
 | VS | |
| $80 | ||
| 3110M vs 4455M | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| 3217U vs 847 | ||
