A6-3620 vs Core M-5Y70

A6-3620 vs Core M-5Y70 Performance Spectrum

A6-3620

4 / 4

1,877

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core M-5Y70

2 / 4

1,890

+0.7%

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A6-3620 vs Core M-5Y70 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A6-3620 vs Core M-5Y70: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A6-3620

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6530D, while Core M-5Y70 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core M-5Y70.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,877 vs 1,890).

Core M-5Y70

2014

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $281 MSRP, while A6-3620 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-3620 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-3620.

Quick Answers

So, is Core M-5Y70 better than A6-3620?

Yes. Core M-5Y70 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.7% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core M-5Y70 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core M-5Y70 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core M-5Y70 is the better buy right now. Core M-5Y70 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $281 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (6.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core M-5Y70 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-3620 vs Core M-5Y70 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A6-3620

The A6-3620 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,877 points. Launch price was $70.

Core M-5Y70

The Core M-5Y70 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 5 September 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-Y (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1234. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,890 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3620 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core M-5Y70 offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the A6-3620 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A6-3620 versus 2.6 GHz on the Core M-5Y70 — a 3.9% clock advantage for the Core M-5Y70 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The A6-3620 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core M-5Y70 uses Broadwell-Y (2014) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3620 scores 1,877 against the Core M-5Y70's 1,890 — a 0.7% lead for the Core M-5Y70. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-3620 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core M-5Y70.

Feature	A6-3620	Core M-5Y70
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz	2.6 GHz+4%
Base Clock	2.2 GHz+100%	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Broadwell-Y (2014)
PassMark	1,877	1,890
Geekbench 6 Single	300	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3620 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core M-5Y70 uses FCBGA1234 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-3620	Core M-5Y70
Socket	FM1	FCBGA1234
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-3620) / not specified (Core M-5Y70). The A6-3620 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6530D), while the Core M-5Y70 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3620 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A6-3620 rivals Pentium G840.