Ryzen 7 2700 vs A6-5200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-5200
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 25 Watt
1.08
Ryzen 7 2700
2018
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
10.16
+841%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by a whopping 841% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking2319709
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data19.64
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD Ryzen 7
Architecture codenameKabini (2013−2014)Zen+ (2018−2020)
Release date23 May 2013 (11 years ago)13 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$299
Current price$421 $177 (0.6x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads416
Base clock speedno data3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus supportno data4 × 8 GT/s
L1 cache256 KB768 KB
L2 cache2048 KB4 MB
L3 cache0 KB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm12 nm
Die size246 mm2213 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)90 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 million4800 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFT3AM4
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, DDR3L-1600SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA
AES-NI++
FMAFMA4no data
AVX++
PowerTune-no data
TrueAudio-no data
PowerNow+no data
PowerGating+no data
Out-of-band client management-no data
VirusProtect+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1600DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channels12
Maximum memory bandwidthno data46.933 GB/s
ECC memory supportno data+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 8400-
Number of pipelines128-
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics1-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 11-
Vulkan1-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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.

A6-5200 1.08
Ryzen 7 2700 10.16
+841%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 841% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

A6-5200 1664
Ryzen 7 2700 15707
+844%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 844% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

A6-5200 210
Ryzen 7 2700 1113
+430%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 430% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

A6-5200 597
Ryzen 7 2700 5494
+820%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 820% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

A6-5200 1598
Ryzen 7 2700 4505
+182%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 182% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A6-5200 5600
Ryzen 7 2700 31385
+460%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 460% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A6-5200 2660
Ryzen 7 2700 9475
+256%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 256% in 3DMark06 CPU.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

A6-5200 26.1
Ryzen 7 2700 5.14
+408%

A6-5200 outperforms Ryzen 7 2700 by 408% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

A6-5200 2
Ryzen 7 2700 17
+779%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 779% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A6-5200 156
Ryzen 7 2700 1551
+894%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 894% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A6-5200 42
Ryzen 7 2700 161
+280%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 280% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A6-5200 0.52
Ryzen 7 2700 1.78
+242%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 242% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A6-5200 1.1
Ryzen 7 2700 9
+757%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 757% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A6-5200 1152
Ryzen 7 2700 4440
+286%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 286% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A6-5200 11
Ryzen 7 2700 90
+687%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 687% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A6-5200 52
Ryzen 7 2700 196
+279%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A6-5200 by 279% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.08 10.16
Recency 23 May 2013 13 April 2018
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 4 16
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 65 Watt

The Ryzen 7 2700 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-5200 in performance tests.

Be aware that A6-5200 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 2700 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-5200 and Ryzen 7 2700, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A6-5200
A6-5200
AMD Ryzen 7 2700
Ryzen 7 2700

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 185 votes

Rate A6-5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2901 vote

Rate Ryzen 7 2700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-5200 or Ryzen 7 2700, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.