A6-7400K vs Core i7-2617M

A6-7400K vs Core i7-2617M Performance Spectrum

A6-7400K

2 / 2

1,678

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i7-2617M

2 / 4

1,687

+0.5%

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.

A6-7400K 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.

A6-7400K 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.

A6-7400K

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Core i7-2617M.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,678 vs 1,687).
❌Launch MSRP is still $101 MSRP, while Core i7-2617M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.

Core i7-2617M

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 17W instead of 65W, a 48W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A6-7400K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-7400K.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-7400K better than Core i7-2617M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-7400K is ahead with a 3.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-2617M pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-7400K is the better buy right now. A6-7400K comes in at an unclear MSRP at $101 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core i7-2617M is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.5% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (16.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A6-7400K makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-7400K vs Core i7-2617M Technical Specifications

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

A6-7400K

The A6-7400K is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,678 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 A6-7400K packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-2617M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the A6-7400K versus 2.6 GHz on the Core i7-2617M — a 40% clock advantage for the A6-7400K (base: 3.5 GHz vs 1.5 GHz). The A6-7400K uses the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i7-2617M uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-7400K scores 1,678 against the Core i7-2617M's 1,687 — a 0.5% lead for the Core i7-2617M.

Feature	A6-7400K	Core i7-2617M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz+50%	2.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+133%	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	—	4 MB
L2 Cache	1024 kB+100%	512 kB
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Kaveri (2014−2015)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,678	1,687
Geekbench 6 Single	—	448

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-7400K uses the FM2+ socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-2617M uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1866 on the A6-7400K versus DDR3-1333 on the Core i7-2617M — the A6-7400K supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-7400K supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: FM2+ (A6-7400K) and HM65,HM67,QM67,QS67,UM67 (Core i7-2617M).

Feature	A6-7400K	Core i7-2617M
Socket	FM2+	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1866+40%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the A6-7400K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: true (A6-7400K) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i7-2617M). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R5 Graphics (A6-7400K) and HD Graphics 3000 (Core i7-2617M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-2617M targets Ultrabook. Direct competitor: A6-7400K rivals Pentium G3420; Core i7-2617M rivals A6-3400M.