A8-3520M vs A8-6500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-6500
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.78
+95.6%
A8-3520M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.91

A8-6500 outperforms A8-3520M by an impressive 96% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-6500 and A8-3520M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20272543
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD A-Series
Power efficiency2.592.46
Architecture codenameRichland (2013−2014)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date1 June 2013 (11 years ago)20 December 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A8-6500 and A8-3520M 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)
Threads44
Base clock speed3.5 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz2.5 GHz
L1 cache192 KB128 KB (per core)
L2 cache4096 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size246 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A8-6500 and A8-3520M 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 configuration11
SocketFM2FS1
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-6500 and A8-3520M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVXAVX-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-6500 and A8-3520M are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-6500 and A8-3520M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1866DDR3
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 8570DAMD Radeon HD 6620G (444 MHz)
จำนวนพาธไลน์256no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A8-6500 and A8-3520M integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A8-6500 and A8-3520M integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 11no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-6500 and A8-3520M.

PCIe version2.0no data

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.

A8-6500 1.78
+95.6%
A8-3520M 0.91

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

A8-6500 2824
+96%
A8-3520M 1441

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

A8-6500 442
+73.3%
A8-3520M 255

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

A8-6500 1042
+51.7%
A8-3520M 687

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.78 0.91
Integrated graphics card 1.13 0.89
Recency 1 June 2013 20 December 2011
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

A8-6500 has a 95.6% higher aggregate performance score, 27% faster integrated GPU, and an age advantage of 1 year.

A8-3520M, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.

The A8-6500 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-3520M in performance tests.

Note that A8-6500 is a desktop processor while A8-3520M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-6500 and A8-3520M, 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 A8-6500
A8-6500
AMD A8-3520M
A8-3520M

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.


3.9 108 votes

Rate A8-6500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 103 votes

Rate A8-3520M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-6500 or A8-3520M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.