i3-7102E vs A10-9620P
Aggregate performance score
Core i3-7102E outperforms A10-9620P by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-9620P and Core i3-7102E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2106 | 2086 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.17 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Bristol Ridge | Intel Core i3 |
| Power efficiency | 10.04 | 6.18 |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 1 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $225 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A10-9620P and Core i3-7102E 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 3 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A10-9620P and Core i3-7102E 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 | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FP4 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 25 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-9620P and Core i3-7102E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-9620P and Core i3-7102E are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-9620P and Core i3-7102E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3L-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 34.134 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 758 MHz) | Intel HD Graphics 630 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-9620P and Core i3-7102E.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.60 | 1.64 |
| Integrated graphics card | 2.44 | 3.11 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 25 Watt |
A10-9620P has 100% more physical cores, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
i3-7102E, on the other hand, has a 2.5% higher aggregate performance score, 27.5% faster integrated GPU, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A10-9620P and Core i3-7102E.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-9620P and Core i3-7102E, 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.
