A6-5200 vs Core i3-4010U

A6-5200 vs Core i3-4010U Performance Spectrum

A6-5200

4 / 4

1,672

+0.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-4010U

2 / 4

1,660

0.0%

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.

A6-5200 vs Core i3-4010U 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.

A6-5200 vs Core i3-4010U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-5200

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 25W instead of 512W, a 487W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core i3-4010U

2013

Why buy it

✅50% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,660 vs 1,672).
❌1948% higher power demand at 512W vs 25W.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-5200 better than Core i3-4010U?

Yes. A6-5200 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 6 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, A6-5200 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.2% more average FPS across 6 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-5200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-5200 still makes the most sense overall. A6-5200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A6-5200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-5200 vs Core i3-4010U Technical Specifications

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

A6-5200

The A6-5200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,672 points. Launch price was $70.

Core i3-4010U

The Core i3-4010U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 June 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,660 points. Launch price was $281.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-5200 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-4010U offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the A6-5200 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the A6-5200 versus 1.7 GHz on the Core i3-4010U — a 16.2% clock advantage for the A6-5200. The A6-5200 uses the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i3-4010U uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A6-5200 scores 1,672 against the Core i3-4010U's 1,660 — a 0.7% lead for the A6-5200. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-5200 vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-4010U.

Feature	A6-5200	Core i3-4010U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2 GHz+18%	1.7 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.7 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2048 kB+700%	256K (per core)
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Kabini (2013−2014)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	1,672	1,660
Geekbench 6 Single	215	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-5200 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i3-4010U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The Core i3-4010U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A6-5200) vs 2 (Core i3-4010U). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-5200) vs 12 (Core i3-4010U) — the Core i3-4010U offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A6-5200	Core i3-4010U
Socket	FT3	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	12+50%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A6-5200) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-4010U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8400 (A6-5200) and HD Graphics 4400 (Core i3-4010U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-5200 targets Entry Laptop, Core i3-4010U targets Mobile. Direct competitor: A6-5200 rivals Pentium N3510.