A6-5200 vs Core i7-2617M

A6-5200 vs Core i7-2617M Performance Spectrum

A6-5200

4 / 4

1,672

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i7-2617M

2 / 4

1,687

+0.9%

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

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 i7-2617M 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 i7-2617M: 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

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (215 vs 448).
❌Lower PassMark (1,672 vs 1,687).
❌47.1% higher power demand at 25W vs 17W.

Core i7-2617M

2011

Why buy it

✅+108.4% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 17W instead of 25W, a 8W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-2617M better than A6-5200?

Yes. Core i7-2617M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.9% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-2617M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.2% 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 i7-2617M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i7-2617M still makes the most sense overall. Core i7-2617M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 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 a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-5200 vs Core i7-2617M 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 i7-2617M

The Core i7-2617M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 1,687 points. Launch price was $100.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-5200 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i7-2617M offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the A6-5200 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the A6-5200 versus 2.6 GHz on the Core i7-2617M — a 26.1% clock advantage for the Core i7-2617M. The A6-5200 uses the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i7-2617M uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-5200 scores 1,672 against the Core i7-2617M's 1,687 — a 0.9% lead for the Core i7-2617M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 215 vs 448, a 70.3% lead for the Core i7-2617M that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-5200 vs 4 MB on the Core i7-2617M.

Feature	A6-5200	Core i7-2617M
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.6 GHz+30%
Base Clock	—	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB
L2 Cache	2048 kB+300%	512 kB
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Kabini (2013−2014)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,672	1,687
Geekbench 6 Single	215	448+108%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-5200 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i7-2617M uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A6-5200 versus DDR3-1333 on the Core i7-2617M — the A6-5200 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (A6-5200) vs 2 (Core i7-2617M). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-5200) vs 16 (Core i7-2617M) — the Core i7-2617M offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A6-5200	Core i7-2617M
Socket	FT3	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+20%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A6-5200) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i7-2617M). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8400 (A6-5200) and HD Graphics 3000 (Core i7-2617M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-5200 targets Entry Laptop, Core i7-2617M targets Ultrabook. Direct competitor: A6-5200 rivals Pentium N3510; Core i7-2617M rivals A6-3400M.