i3-530 vs Athlon X4 860K
Aggregate performance score
Athlon X4 860K outperforms Core i3-530 by a whopping 127% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1860 | 2520 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.14 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 2.15 | 1.23 |
| Architecture codename | Kaveri (2014−2015) | Clarkdale (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 12 August 2014 (10 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $60 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 0.93 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 2.5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 256K | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 245 mm2 | 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 73 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,411 million | 382 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FM2+ | FCLGA1156 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 73 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| FDI | no data | + |
Security technologies
Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-2133 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16.38 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel Processors |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.16 | 0.95 |
| Recency | 12 August 2014 | 7 January 2010 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 73 Watt |
Athlon X4 860K has a 127.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
i3-530, on the other hand, has 30.1% lower power consumption.
The Athlon X4 860K is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-530 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 860K and Core i3-530, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
