Intel N4200 vs N3710 |
Released July, 2016
Intel N4200
- 1.1 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel N4200
 | Better PassMark (Single core) score 852 | | Better performance per watt 13.78 pt/W |
| | Better 3DMark06 CPU score 28.3 | | Newer Jul, 2016 |
VS
Released January, 2016
Intel N3710
- 1.6 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the N3710
| | Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz | | Significantly higher GPU clock speed 400 MHz |
| | Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.6 GHz |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 852 | vs | 567 | More than 50% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better performance per watt | 13.78 pt/W | vs | 12.22 pt/W | Around 15% better performance per watt | |||
| Better 3DMark06 CPU score | 28.3 | vs | 25.2 | More than 10% better 3DMark06 CPU score | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2016 | vs | Jan, 2016 | Release date 6 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 1.6 GHz | vs | 1.1 GHz | More than 45% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher GPU clock speed | 400 MHz | vs | 200 MHz | 2x higher GPU clock speed | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.6 GHz | vs | 1.1 GHz | More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of N4200 vs N3710
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
3D Mark 06 (CPU)
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | N4200 | vs | N3710 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.56 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 6W | 6W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 1.45 $/year | 1.45 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 5.26 $/year | 5.26 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 13.78 pt/W | 12.22 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 4.88W | 4.88W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
details | N4200 | vs | N3710 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 14 nm | 14 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.39 GHz | 2.56 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.39 GHz | 2.56 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | GPU | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 505 | Intel® HD Graphics 405 | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 | |
| GPU clock speed | 200 MHz | 400 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3L-1600 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | No | No | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 12,800 MB/s | 25,600 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 8,192 MB | 8,192 MB | |
 Intel N4200  Report a correction |  Intel N3710 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6100U vs N4200 | ||
 | VS | |
| N3350 vs N4200 | ||
 | VS | |
| N3450 vs N4200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $275 | ||
| 5005U vs N4200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs N4200 | ||
 | VS | |
| x5-Z8350 vs N4200 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $275 | ||
| 5005U vs N3710 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS | |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS | |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9420 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $296 | ||
| 7th Gen A12-9700P vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $168 | $300 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $296 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
| | VS | |
| $281 | ||
| N4200 vs 6100U | ||
| | VS | |
| $296 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6700K | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 1 comment.
