Core i3-3220 vs Phenom II X6 1075T
Aggregated performance score
Phenom II X6 1075T outperforms Core i3-3220 by 51% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
Comparing Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1724 | 2055 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 57 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.63 | 0.22 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i3 (Desktop) |
| Architecture codename | Thuban (2010) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 21 September 2010 (13 years ago) | 3 September 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $260 | $117 |
| Current price | $68 (0.3x MSRP) | $59 (0.5x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Phenom II X6 1075T has 186% better value for money than i3-3220.
Detailed Specifications
Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 6 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 3 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 346 mm2 | 94 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 65 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 65 °C |
| Number of transistors | 904 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220 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 | AM3 | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | no data | - |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | - |
| Identity Protection | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 2500 |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
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.
Phenom II X6 1075T outperforms Core i3-3220 by 51% based on our aggregated 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%
Phenom II X6 1075T outperforms Core i3-3220 by 51% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Physics
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Phenom II X6 1075T outperforms Core i3-3220 by 133% in 3DMark Fire Strike Physics.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 2.21 | 1.46 |
| Recency | 21 September 2010 | 3 September 2012 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 2 |
| Threads | 6 | 4 |
| Cost | $260 | $117 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 55 Watt |
The Phenom II X6 1075T is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-3220 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X6 1075T and Core i3-3220, 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.
