A6-6310 vs Core 2 Duo E7200
Aggregate performance score
A6-6310 outperforms Core 2 Duo E7200 by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2773 | 2421 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD A-Series |
| Power efficiency | 0.92 | 6.62 |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Beema (2014) |
| Release date | April 2008 (16 years ago) | 29 April 2014 (10 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.53 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.53 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 2048 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 82 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 228 million | 930 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | LGA775 | FT3b |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | FMA4 |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| PowerGating | - | + |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
| IOMMU 2.0 | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3-1865 |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R4 Graphics |
| Enduro | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.63 | 1.05 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
A6-6310 has a 66.7% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
The A6-6310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E7200 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Duo E7200 is a desktop processor while A6-6310 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E7200 and A6-6310, 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.
