• What
    is this?
    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.
    PRESENTED BY

Processor Graphics Performance

The Sandy Bridge Pentium lineup features the performance equivalent of Intel's HD Graphics 2000. AMD's A6-3650 on the other hand sports a 320 core GPU called the Radeon HD 6530D. How do the two stack up? What about compared to the A8-3850's Radeon HD 6550D? We're about to find out.

We'll start with the A6-3650 vs. the Pentium G850. I didn't include the slower Pentiums because there's simply no point to. The A6-3650's Radeon HD 6530D GPU is on average 2.33x the speed of the Pentium G850 across all of our tests and all resolutions. There's simply no competition and at these frame rates, even at 1024 x 768, I wouldn't consider the G850's graphics playable unless you go to older games or really make the game look terrible.

AMD A6 vs. AMD A8

What about the AMD A6 vs. A8? On average the A8's higher GPU clock and 80 extra GPU cores give it an 18 - 26% performance advantage over the A6's GPU depending on resolution. Both systems here use DDR3-1600 memory and despite memory bandwidth being constrained across the board, the A8's advantage increases with resolution.

CPU Performance & Power Consumption The Processor Graphics Gaming Charts
POST A COMMENT

110 Comments

View All Comments

  • yankeeDDL - Monday, September 05, 2011 - link

    Averik, positive exchange of opinion and ideas is always nice, I think :)
    I wrote another comment a few pages down about comparing power consumption.
    It is very difficult to compare power consumption based on the data above, however, a "quick and dirty" comparison can be done using the data from the graphs of the H264 decoding and the power under load.
    You can see that the G620 uses 55% of the power of the X3, but the X3 takes 60% of the time to do the compression.
    What this means is that under load, the G620 consumes less, but the X3 goes back idle much faster than the G620. Of course, this is one specific scenario: in general, it's clear that the G620 is more efficient, but also slower.
    Considering the type of applications you indicate, I think the amount of time when the system will be at max power will be extremely low, compared to the idle time.
    Unfortunately Anand did not compare the idle power consumption between these CPUs.
    This page compares system level power consumption of both the X3 and the G620 (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/penti... and shows again the X3 on top. In the comment you see that with other MoBos the G620 idle power can be shaver a little and be made, at best, the same.
    So I stand by my position: the G620 offers no advantage over the Athlon X3, and this includes power consumption considerations (at system level, which is what matters). Considering the price difference and the 3rd core, I would not consider the low-end sandy bridge for my budget PCs.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, January 03, 2013 - link

    Exactly, and that newer platform has a gigantic upgrade path years from now while the amd system has jack nothing.

    When the company wants to throw the systems away, all the employees will want one because they can drop a 2500K in it for the $50 it will cost then, and have a freaking screamer of system again. Or one of the new IB's.

    The amd boards won't make it in tact to the trash bin. No one will want them.
    Reply
  • TypeS - Thursday, August 25, 2011 - link

    Brand recognition, plain and simple. That is why Intel releases these chips and why they will sell. Agree with the ways Intel has grown in the last 2 decades, they have the market leader spot and will use it. Intel was the company that created the x86 design and AMD would be nothing today without it's tech and government forcing cross-licensing agreements down Intel's throat.

    Remember the percentage of us that actually read these reviews, go to these websites and know that actual statistics of all the various PC components is pretty small compared to the size of the consumer market. People usually walk into a Best Buy (or other big box store) and see two things to base their decisions on, brand and price.

    You see the same with cars. People buy the ridiculously overpriced german, italian and bristish "luxury" cars when the same quality can be found in premium Japanese cars and some luxury American models. It's brand recognition. Who wins in performance charts means little in the end.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, January 03, 2013 - link

    A few year down the line in hoes the IB or 2500K or 2600K and suddenly the piece of crap is a MONSTER.

    The amd board - stomp it. It loses, screw any upgrade.

    Oh look at that... only a freaking fool would buy the amd rig now.
    Reply
  • JD_Mortal - Monday, May 06, 2013 - link

    Because 90% of computer users only do "basic stuff" with thier computers.

    Because, AC is more expensive than heat.

    Because having 2000 computers that constantly draw 95Watts at idle, and not being used, is more expensive to operate for four years, than 2000 running at 23Watts at idle.

    Because "We" (the people buying them, who are the majority of sales), keep asking for it. Thus, fueling the few sales and development of YOUR overpriced and over powered (wattage-power), making them within your actual budget. (Without OUR sales, YOUR chips would still be on 65nm, and cost $1000 per CPU. Oh, you are welcome BTW.)
    Reply
  • algida79 - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    Hi Anand. I think that the phrasing under the x264 comparison charts:

    "Without Quick Sync, the Pentiums have to rely on raw CPU power for video encoding performance."

    is a bit misleading. It implies that the presence of QuickSync would benefit the Pentiums' performance in x264 encoding, which is not the case.
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    Very true - fixed :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • Arnulf - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    How about that par2 test, is it true that the lower clock A6-3650 is faster at this one than A8-3850 ? Reply
  • ckryan - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    But I don't think the celeron line deserves to continue.

    These Pentiums aren't unattractive neccessarily. If you think about it, they're faster than a comparable i3-5xx series, have better IGPs and use less power. You can't over clock them, nor can they hyperthread, but they're not useless. The celeron line refresh is a different story -- though I suppose you could say the 1155 celerons are the best ever... not that it's saying much. I have a spare 1155 H67 board laying around that could be inexpensively outfitted with a Pentium for not much cash, but the question remains whether the Athlon II X3 it would replace would be better served by retirement. The answer is probably no -- it's not worth the $78 for a lateral move. If you're building a budget system from scratch you'll probably need to decide whether a super cheap H61 board and a Pentium is a good investment, and I think most people would be better served with an Athlon II system if you can't fit Llano or a H67/z68 i3 setup into your budget. But if you're in the market, a G620/H61/4GB DDR3/Rosewill Case and PSU combo is less than $200 at Newegg. So I'd say buy whatever is on sale. Add $120 for a cheap SSD and DVD burner and you have a system that could do everything but game, or choose to get a entry level GPU like the 6600 series and you could game pretty well for such a modest system.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    The problem with your thinking is after some time one can drop a 2500K SB in the dirt cheap pentium board and be miles ahead of any amd setup, which cannot and will not do the same thing.

    So if you go amd you've screwed yourself forever.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now