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


View All Comments

  • yankeeDDL - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    If you want to use a "super duper" cheap PC you use Llano, not a Pentium. Reply
  • ET - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    What's apparent from your response is that Llano can beat a Pentium only when you make sure to ignore the requirements and instead stick to a couple of words without true meaning. Reply
  • yankeeDDL - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    The details of the "super duper" were in the post I replied to, which I was obviously referring to.
    I intentionally put "super duper" in quotes, as it seemed a rather inefficient way to convey its message.
    I stick to what I said though: if you need a small system with some power to get your everyday job done, you should look for something that gives you the best value for your bucks, as well as the lowest acceptable level of performance.

    Hey, we're reviewing the Pentium family here: anybody interested in gaming machines, or high-performance PCs, should look elsewhere.
    If you look at Pentium, is because you seek entry level, unpretentious performance.
    And my point is that Llano is a much better alternative than the Pentiums in these areas: they have slightly less performing CPU cores, much better GPU (which, let's not forget, helps an awful lot in web browsing, Flash acceleration) and all for a similar price.
  • jabber - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    The issue I find when trying to build a budget Intel box over a budget AMD box is not so much the CPUs (though often I find the Intel chip will come in around £15 more) but the motherboards.

    I can get a decent Gigabyte motherboard for the AMD chip with USB3.0/eSATA/HDMI/Firewire/optical out etc.

    The same cost Intel board will still have serial and parallel ports and maybe 4 USB2.0 ports and thats pretty much it.

    Intel at the budget end just isnt attractive or value for money. Oh it might be a bit faster but Joe Customer doesnt notice that.

    Intel - Nice CPUS, shame about the crappy motherboard choices.
  • yankeeDDL - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    From the moment that the 1st Athlon arrived, Intel stopped making sense for budget PCs.
    It is very clear today: Sandy Bridge is the undisputed champion of performance and efficiency, only clouded by a mediocre GPU, and yet, despite the significant architectural advantage, they compete with AMD's pricing by crippling their CPUs to the level where it makes no sense anymore.

    Unless you're an Intel fanboy/aficionado, like ET, it should be clear to you that the efficiency advantage of a dual core Pentium G620, over an Athlon II X3, are easily balanced by performance advantage (Tom's Hardware places the Athlon II X3 au-pair with the G850). When compared to the G850, you have higher cost, less flexibility, and 2 cores instead of 3. Quite frankly, I'm still waiting for a good benchmarking methodology, that shows how much CPU cores the various background programs (virus scanners, power management, instant messaging, live feeds, ...) take on a regular basis and what real-life impact do they have on a 2-core vs 3-or-more-core CPU.
  • seapeople - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    I don't see why everyone is so negative about Intel "crippling" their CPUs to sell them at lower prices. Sure, Intel could just sell their 2600K for $100 and still make a profit, but that would basically drive AMD out of business and then our government would step in and then we would have Intel Company A and Intel Company B. Company B would buy the remnants of AMD and then we would have Intel and Pseudo-AMD Intel.

    How would that be better?
  • yankeeDDL - Wednesday, August 24, 2011 - link

    The fact is crippling their CPUs doesn't really save them any money, since the silicon is very likely exactly the same.
    The gripe, at least from my side, is that you need a degree to figure out what does what.
    And yes, Intel has enough money to throw AMD out of business any time they want to, which is also why it bothers me that people try to look for value in low-performance, crippled Intel units, when they have better solutions on AMD's front: if you don't find this info on specialized, semi-professional websites like Anandtech, then where can you?

    Let's not forget what was happening with Pentium II and Pentium 4 back then when Intel had, basically, no competition. I am convinced that we have Sandy Bridge today (which is a fantastic piece of technology), only thanks to the kick in the balls that AMD gave Intel with the Athlon back in the days.
    I hope history repeats itself with Bulldozer: it is only going to do all of us customers, good.
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    For all you know without AMD sucking dry the world's resources and crapping up everything with endless complaints, lawsuits, appeals to world courts and the EU, spending hundreds of millions fragmenting the PC space and wasting dies on crap, we'd have INTEL CPU's at twice and thrice the speed they are now.

    Instead Intel has had to spend vast resources coddling the crybaby amd and billions in court, constant engineers to help the crybaby loser company do x86 compatibly, and on and on.

    AMD is much more likely a SCOURGE to progress and innovation - and now after sucking the world dry, they are still worse than broke.
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    It is clear that NONE of you people have clue one what Intel makes on any cpu.

    The saddest of issues is amd LOSES MONEY on everything they make.

    Now, since every one of you Intel haterz tells us amd is such a good deal, isn't it YOU who need to change ? Aren't you people the real problem ?

    AMD should charge more, and all you amd fanboys SHOULD BUY IT when it is no better a deal than any Intel - then we could have TWO competitors, one of which is no longer losing it's shirt.

    Instead I'm sure you'll keep demanding amd strip their prices ever lower, THEN THEY WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS - and you'll blame Intel, or the government, but NEVER you, never yourselves, never the REAL PROBLEM.
  • yo2020 - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - link

    It would be great if we have a chart for Power Consumption without discrete GPU. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now