A10-4657M vs Core 2 Duo E6850
Aggregate performance score
A10-4657M outperforms Core 2 Duo E6850 by an impressive 52% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3010 | 2726 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Duo (Desktop) | AMD A-Series |
| Power efficiency | 0.43 | 1.21 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Conroe (2006−2007) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | no data | 1 April 2013 (12 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and A10-4657M 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 291 million | 1303 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and A10-4657M 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 | no data |
| Socket | 775 | BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and A10-4657M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and A10-4657M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 7660G (497 - 686 MHz) |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.66 | 1.00 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
A10-4657M has a 51.5% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.
The AMD A10-4657M is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Duo E6850 is a desktop processor while A10-4657M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
