Processor N200 vs A6-7310

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-7310
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 12 Watt
1.74
+10.8%
Processor N200
2023
4 cores / 44 x 3.7 GHz Intel Crestmont E-Core threads, 6 Watt
1.57

A6-7310 outperforms Processor N200 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-7310 and Processor N200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking19452026
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Alder Lake-N
Architecture codenameCarrizo-L (2015)Alder Lake-N
Release date7 May 2015 (9 years ago)3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Current price$452 no data

Detailed specifications

A6-7310 and Processor N200 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads444 x 3.7  GHz Intel Crestmont E-Core
Base clock speed2 GHz0.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cacheno data96 KB (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB2 MB (shared)
L3 cacheno data6 MB
Chip lithography28 nm10 nm
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors930 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on A6-7310 and Processor N200 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configurationno data1
SocketFP4Intel BGA 1264
Power consumption (TDP)12-25 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-7310 and Processor N200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VTno data
AES-NI++
FMAFMA4no data
AVX++
PowerTune-no data
TrueAudio-no data
PowerNow+no data
PowerGating+no data
Out-of-band client management-no data
VirusProtect+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Security technologies

A6-7310 and Processor N200 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-7310 and Processor N200 are enumerated here.

AMD-V1no data
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
IOMMU 2.0+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-7310 and Processor N200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3L-1866DDR4, DDR54800 MHz Single-channel
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R4 GraphicsIntel UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)
Enduro+no data
Switchable graphics1no data
UVD+no data
VCE+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-7310 and Processor N200 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+no data
HDMI+no data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A6-7310 and Processor N200 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan1no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-7310 and Processor N200.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data9

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A6-7310 1.74
+10.8%
Processor N200 1.57

A6-7310 outperforms Processor N200 by 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

A6-7310 1801
Processor N200 3937
+119%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 119% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A6-7310 5075
Processor N200 7549
+48.8%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 49% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

A6-7310 2
Processor N200 3
+37.2%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 37% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A6-7310 139
Processor N200 219
+57.6%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 58% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A6-7310 45
Processor N200 113
+154%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 154% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A6-7310 0.58
Processor N200 1.36
+134%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 134% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A6-7310 1
Processor N200 3.2
+220%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 220% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A6-7310 1176
Processor N200 2115
+79.8%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 80% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A6-7310 12
Processor N200 16
+40.5%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 41% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A6-7310 53
Processor N200 80
+50.6%

Processor N200 outperforms A6-7310 by 51% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.74 1.57
Recency 7 May 2015 3 January 2023
Threads 4 44 x 3.7 GHz Intel Crestmont E-Core
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 6 Watt

The A6-7310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Processor N200 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-7310 and Processor N200, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A6-7310
A6-7310
Intel Processor N200
Processor N200

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 467 votes

Rate A6-7310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 111 votes

Rate Processor N200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-7310 or Processor N200, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.