A6-5350M vs Core i5-2400
Aggregate performance score
i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by a whopping 216% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1669 | 2532 |
| Place by popularity | 35 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.86 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core i5 (Desktop) | AMD A-Series |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Richland (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 9 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $60 | no data |
| Current price | $32 (0.5x MSRP) | $61 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M 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 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2048 KB |
| L3 cache | 6144 KB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 216 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 73 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M 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 | LGA1155 | FS1r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA, DDR3-1600 Controller |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| PowerNow | no data | - |
| PowerGating | no data | - |
| Out-of-band client management | no data | - |
| VirusProtect | no data | - |
| RAID | no data | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
| IOMMU 2.0 | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 2000 | AMD Radeon HD 8450G |
| Quick Sync Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Enduro | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 11 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | Not Listed |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no 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.
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 216% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 218% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 77% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 261% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
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%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 78% 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%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 288% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 247% in 3DMark06 CPU.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
A6-5350M outperforms Core i5-2400 by 249% in wPrime 32.
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%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 310% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-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%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 196% 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%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 173% 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%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 224% 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%
Core i5-2400 outperforms A6-5350M by 216% in x264 encoding pass 1.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.50 | 0.79 |
| Recency | 9 January 2011 | 1 June 2013 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
The Core i5-2400 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-5350M in performance tests.
Note that Core i5-2400 is a desktop processor while A6-5350M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-2400 and A6-5350M, 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.
