We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

[nextpage title=”Introduction”]

After testing two of the most inexpensive processors for desktop computers (A6-6400K and the Pentium G3220), it is time for us to test two mainstream models for the same platforms: the A10-6800K and the Core i3-4150. Let’s see which one is the best pick.

Both the A10-6800K from AMD and the Core i3-4150 from Intel are mainstream desktop processors with integrated video, costing around USD 125. However, some people may think the A10-6800K is a high-end CPU, while the Core i3-4150 is an entry level one, since Intel offers a large amount of more expensive models, while there are a only a few AMD models that cost more than the A10-6800K. But it is important to keep in mind they are direct competitors, since they are similar products that cost virtually the same.

Another important detail is that, while the A10-6800K is a quad-core processor, the Core i3-4150 is a dual-core one, but due to the Hyper-Threading technology, it is detected by the operating system as having four processing cores.

Figures 1 and 2 unveil the two tested CPUs.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150Figure 1: the A10-6800K CPU

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150Figure 2: the Core i3-4150 CPU

Let’s compare the main specs of the tested CPUs in the next page.

[nextpage title=”The Reviewed CPUs”]

Altough the two CPUs tested in this review, the A10-6800K and the Core i3-4150, are not competitors to the A6-6400K and the Pentium G3220, we included the data collected for these two CPUs, which were tested under the same methodology, in order to show the performance difference between mainstream and the value CPUs that make use of the same platform.

In the tables below, we compare the main features of the CPUs included in our review.

CPU Cores HT IGP Internal Clock Turbo Clock Base Clock Core Tech. TDP Socket Price
A10-6800K 4 No Yes 4.1 GHz 4.4 GHz 100 MHz Richland 32 nm 100 W FM2 USD 125
Core i3-4150 2 Yes Yes 3.5 GHz 100 MHz Haswell 22 nm 54 W LGA1150 USD 123
A6-6400K 2 No Yes 3.9 GHz 4.1 GHz 100 MHz Richland 32 nm 65 W FM2 USD 53
Pentium G3220 2 No Yes 3.0 GHz 100 MHz Haswell 22 nm 53 W LGA1150 USD 53

Prices were researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review. TDP stands for Thermal Design Power and states the maximum amount of heat the CPU can dissipate.

Below you can see the memory configuration for each CPU.

CPU L2 Cache L3 Cache Memory Support Memory Channels

A10-6800K

2 x 2 MiB Up to DDR3-2133 Two

Core i3-4150

2 x 256 kiB 3 MiB Up to DDR3-1600 Two
A6-6400K 1 MiB Up to DDR3-1866 Two
Pentium G3220 2 x 256 kiB 3 MiB Up to DDR3-1333 Two

Below we have a quick comparison of the video engine of the CPUs.

CPU Video Engine DirectX Clock Cores

A10-6800K

Radeon HD 8670D 11.0 844 MHz 384

Core i3-4150

HD 4400 11.1 350 MHz/1150 MHz 20
A6-6400K Radeon HD 8470D 11.0 800 MHz 192
Pentium G3220 Intel HD 11.1 350 MHz/1100 MHz 10

[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]

During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions, the only variable device was the CPU being tested and the motherboard, which had to be replaced to match the different CPU sockets.

Hardware Configuration

  • Motherboard (socket LGA1150): ASRock Z97 Extreme4
  • Motherboard (socket FM2): ASRock FM2A88X Extreme6+
  • CPU Cooler: AMD/Intel stock
  • Memory (DDR3): 16 GiB DDR3 G.Skill Sniper 1866, two F3-1866C10D-16GSR 8 GiB memory modules configured at 1,866 MHz
  • Boot drive: Kingston HyperX Fury 240 GB
  • Video Card: integrated
  • Video Monitor: Philips 236VL
  • Power Supply: Zalman ZM400-LE

Operating System Configuration

  • Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
  • NTFS
  • Video resolution: 1920 x 1080 60 Hz (desktop), 1280 x 720 (games)

Driver Versions

  • AMD driver version: 14.12
  • Intel Inf chipset driver version: 10.0

Software Used

Error Margin

We adopted a 4% error margin. Thus, differences below 4% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 4% should be considered as having similar performance.

[nextpage title=”PCMark 8″]

PCMark 8 is a benchmarking software that uses real-world applications to measure the computer performance. We ran three tests: Home, which includes web browsing, writing, light gaming, photo editing, and video chat tests; Creative, which includes web browsing, photo editing, video editing, group video chat, media transcoding, and gaming; and Work, which runs tasks such as writing documents, web browsing, spreadsheets, editing, and video chatting. Let’s analyze the results.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150 

On the Home benchmark, the Core i3-4150 achieved a score 4,9% higher than the A10-6800K’s, 30% higher than the A6-6400K’s, and 13% higher than the Pentium G3220’s.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150 

On the Creative benchmark, the Core i3-4150 was 21% faster than the A10-6800K’s, 56% faster than the A6-6400K’s, and 18% faster than the Pentium G3220’s.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150 

On the Work benchmark, the Core i3-4150 achieved a score 15% higher than the A10-6800K’s, 27% higher than the A6-6400K’s, and 10% higher than the Pentium G3220’s.

[nextpage title=”3DMark”]

3DMark is a program with a set of benchmarks that create 3D scenarios and simulations.

The 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark measures DirectX 11 performance, and is aimed at high-end gamer PCs. The Sky Diver benchmark also measures DirectX 11 performance, but is more suitable to mainstream computers. The 3DMark Cloud Gate benchmark measures DirectX 10 performance, running at 1280×720 resolution.

We used the CPU’s integrated video controller.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150 

On the Fire Strike benchmark, the integrated GPU of the A10-6800K was 56% faster than the Core i3-4150’s, 74% faster than the A6-6400K’s, and 153% faster than the Pentium G3220’s.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150

On the Sky Diver benchmark, the integrated GPU of the A10-6800K was 47% faster than the Core i3-4150’s, 65% faster than the A6-6400K’s, and 100% faster than the Pentium G3220’s.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150 

On the Cloud Gate benchmark, the integrated GPU of the A10-6800K was 10% faster than the Core i3-4150’s, and 69% faster than the A6-6400K’s and the Pentium G3220’s.

[nextpage title=”Cinebench R15″]

Cinebench R15 is based on the 3D software Cinema 4D. It is very useful to measure the performance gain given by having more than one CPU installed on the system when rendering heavy 3D images. Rendering is one area in which having more than one CPU helps considerably, because usually, rendering software recognizes several CPUs. (Cinebench, for instance, can use up to 256 CPUs.)

Of course, none of the reviewed CPUs is targeted at rendering, but we included this test since it gives a good idea of muti core performance.

Since we were interested in measuring the rendering performance, we ran the CPU test, which renders a “heavy” sample image using all available CPUs or “cores” – either real or virtual – to speed up the process. The resut is given as a score.

 A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150

Here the Core i3-4150 was 5% faster than the A10-6800K, 137% faster than the A6-6400K, and 52% faster than the Pentium G3220. Which is an interesting result, since the Core i3 is a dual-core CPU, while the A10 is a quad-core model.

[nextpage title=”DivX”]

We used the DivX converter, a tool included in the DivX package, in order to measure the encoding performance using this codec. The DivX codec is, at least theorethically, capable of recognizing and using all available cores and the SSE4 instruction set.

We converted a Full HD, six-minute long .mov video file into a .avi file, using the “HD 1080p” output profile.

The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150

On DivX encoding, the Core i3-4150 was 25% faster than the A10-6800K, 134% faster than the A6-6400K, and 15% faster than the Pentium G3220.

[nextpage title=”DVDShrink”]

DVDShrink is an old but still very useful program to “shrink” video DVDs that have more than 4.7 GiB of data to fit single-layer DVD media. We used it to compress the DVD of “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” DVD to 4.7 GiB. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150 

In this test, the A10-6800K was 9% faster than the Core i3-4150, 85% faster than the A6-6400K, and 55% faster than the Pentium G3220.

[nextpage title=”Media Espresso 6.7″]

Media Espresso is a video conversion program that uses the graphics processing unit of the video engine to speed up the conversion process. We converted a 1 GiB, 1920x1080i, 23,738 kbps, .mov video file to a smaller 320×200, H.264, .MP4 file for viewing on a smartphone. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150 

Here the Core i3-4150 was 21% faster than the A10-6800K, 40% faster than the A6-6400K, and 14% faster than the Pentium G3220.

[nextpage title=”Photoshop CC”]

The best way to measure performance is by using real-world programs. The problem, though, is creating a methodology that provides accurate results. For Photoshop CC, we used a script called “Retouch Artist Speed Test,” which applies a series of filters to a sample image and gives us the time that Photoshop took to run all the filters. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the number the better.

We did not run this test on the A6-6400K and on the Pentium G3220, so we are only comparing the two CPUs reviewed in this article.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150

 In this test, the Core i3-4150 was 22% faster than the A10-6800K.

[nextpage title=”Battlefield 4″]

Battlefield 4 is an installment in the Battlefield franchise, released in 2013. It is based on the Frostbite 3 engine, which is DirectX 11. In order to measure of the integrated GPU performance using this game, we walked our way through the first mission, measuring the number of frames per second three times using FRAPS. We ran this game at 1280 x 720, setting overall image quality at “medium.”

The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.

We did not run this game on the A6-6400K and on the Pentium G3220, so we are only comparing the two CPUs reviewed in this article.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150

In this game, the A10-6800K was 32% faster than the Core i3-4150.

[nextpage title=”F1 2013″]

F1 2013 is a car racing game released in 2013, based on the Formula One championship and using the EGO 3.0 engine.

We tested the performance in this game using the built-in performance test, using “ultra low” quality settings and 1280 x 720 screen resolution.

The results below are expressed in frames per second.

We used the CPU’s integrated video controller.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150

On F1 2013, the integrated GPU of the A10-6800K was 37% faster than the Core i3-4150’s, 121% faster than the A6-6400K’s, and 300% faster than the Pentium G3220’s.

[nextpage title=”Far Cry 3″]

Far Cry 3 is based on the Dunia 2 engine, which is DirectX 11. In order to measure performance using this game, we played the same mission three times, measuring the number of frames per second using FRAPS. We ran this game at the lowest possible settings, using 1280 x 720 resolution, and overall image quality at “medium.”

The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.

We did not run this game on the A6-6400K and on the Pentium G3220, so we are only comparing the two CPUs reviewed in this article.

A10-6800K vs Core i3-5150

 Far Cry 3 ran 61% faster on the A10-6800K than on the Core i3-4150.

[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]

In our recent review, the Pentium G3220 proved to be faster than the A6-6400K in tasks that depend on CPU power. However, we cannot generalize what we discussed in that review to other CPUs from Intel and AMD: for the CPUs we reviewed today, the Core i3-4150 and the A10-6800K, we have a different scenario.

The Core i3-4150 is barely faster than the A10-6800K in most applications that depend excusivelly on CPU processing power. However, in tasks that depend on the GPU, the A10-6800K shows its talents. Its Radeon HD 8670D integrated video engine is not only faster than the Core i3-4150′s, but it is actually powerful enough to run recent games at medium quality settings with a good framerate.

So, if you want to build a mainstream computer with a discrete graphics card, the Core i3-4150 is a slightly better CPU, but if you will use only the integrated video, for work, multimedia or casual gaming, the A10-6800K is a better choice.