Articles Comments

AMD a6-3600 vs Intel Core i3-2100

The AMD’s Llano processors compete with Intel’s Sandy Bridge processors not in high ends but in the mid range where price processing ratio gives AMD some advantage over the Intel’s Sandy Bridge processors. Intel took decisive lead with the launch of the Core i5 and core i7 Sandy Bridge processors. The launch of the Ivy Bridge processors in Q1 / Q2 2012 is only going to widen the gap.

The A6-3600 is however, priced inexpensive ( $109 Vs core i3-2100′s price of $129) – and this makes A6-3600 worth consideration.

The are two features that give the AMD a6-3600 competitive advantage over the Core i3-2100

1. The A6-3600 is quad core while the core i3-2100 is a dual core ( the i3-2100 does has the hyperthreading – but it is not the same as the real cores).

2. The A6-3600 supports Turbo boost that core i3-2100 does not. The turbo boost improves the real world performance significantly.

Table : AMD A6-3600 Vs Core i3-2100 Feature Differences

Feature AMD A6-3600 Core i3-2100
Core Frequency
2.1 GHz 3.10 GHz
No. Of Cores
4 2 (4 Hyperthreads)
Cache Organization
4 x1 MB L2 cache 3 MB L3 Smart Cache
Turbo Frequency 2.4 GHz No Turbo
TDP Rating
65 Watts 65 Watts
64 Bit Support
Y Y
Lithography
32nm 32 nm
Integrated Memory Controller
DDR3-1866 DDR3-1333
Integrated Graphics
Radeon HD 6530D GPU, 320 Shaders Yes, Base 850 MHz, Turbo 1.10 GHz

 

Benchmark Comparison

The small sample of the passmark benchmark for the A6-3600 may not be relied upon. But one thing is certain – the A6-3600 competes well with the core i3-2100 in price as well as performance.

Related posts:

  1. AMD A4-3400 Vs Intel Core i3-2100
  2. Intel Core i3-2100 vs i3-550

4 Response

  1. Saab93 says:

    I think you meant A6-3600 in the table when you wrote A4-3600. Same thing in the benchmark.

  2. admin says:

    Thanks saab93 for pointing this out. The Typo has been corrected.

  3. john says:

    lol…usually i find these benchmarks useful, i spend a useless amount of time looking at them but seriously? you had to benchmark these to know the amd was better? you can tell that just by looking at the table hyperthread is not a core…so you’re basically comparing a quad core amd to a dual core intel…that alone with the better cache, and better mem controller should be plenty to see in plain sight that the amd was better, and i dont even like amd’s.

    For the intel to stand a chance on this comparison it would have to be hitting 3.9-4.2 ghz clock speeds.

    don’t mean to troll, maybe my post is stupid, but just voicing my opinion.

  4. kevin says:

    Not a stupid post at all, but from a consumer perspective, it makes more sense to compare at a given price point than to insist on only comparing quads to quads. In this case, company A will sell you a quad for the price of company B’s dual core. You won’t find a quad core in Intel’s current lineup below $180, and that quad will of course be markedly faster than AMD’s, and so it goes until you’re looking at spending $300. If you’re out to find what your best option is for $100, or more likely, you’re comparing two preconfigured off the shelf systems, this is useful (if not exactly thorough) information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>