A4 PRO-7300B vs i5-3470T
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-3470T outperforms A4 PRO-7300B by a whopping 105% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1965 | 2515 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 5.11 | 1.34 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Richland (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) | August 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $210 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1024 KB |
| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 93.6 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 70 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,303 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| PowerGating | - | + |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| FDI | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
| IOMMU 2.0 | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 2500 | AMD Radeon HD 8470D |
| Number of pipelines | no data | 192 |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Enduro | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 11 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.89 | 0.92 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.69 | 0.97 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
i5-3470T has a 105.4% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more threads, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.
A4 PRO-7300B, on the other hand, has 40.6% faster integrated GPU.
The Core i5-3470T is our recommended choice as it beats the A4 PRO-7300B in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-3470T and A4 PRO-7300B, 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.
