A6-3420M vs Q9000

I am having one hell of a time trying to get some hard numbers on the performance of these two processors. I found a great deal on a laptop to replace my aging and dying M17x but I can't seem to find a speed comparison of these two chips. When I looked up the A6-3420M on Google I can't find much.

Some compare the A6 to i3 or low end i5 and upper end i5 when they are overclocked but there are no hard numbers that I can find.

I obviously don't want to downgrade when buying a new machine. I found one with this chip along with a dedicated 7670M (which should best the 260M GTXs I have now from what I've read) and its quite a cheap deal but I would like some real information before I make a purchase.

 

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000 Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech

AMD A-Series A6-3420M Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech

 

Those charts are extremely confusing. It doesn't help that the tests are different between the chips either.

I'm completely torn right now... this laptop is only 400 dollars and since both of my 260s died on me today, my Bluray has been dead for awhile now, my keyboard is acting up, etc... Spending 400 dollars sounds like a logical choice but that processor matrix is ridiculously confusing.

Maybe its just because I've been up on the Woot Off instead of sleeping but that gave me more questions than anything else.

 

I do see that but since I don't plan on doing anything but gaming and browsing with the machine I would think that the advantage would go to AMD on that one. I guess I will just have to suck it up and drive to Best Buy and play with some A6-based machines - I am pretty used to the performance of my Q9000 and notice any drastic difference pretty much right away.

 

Don't make a decision based on a single benchmark either. The A6-3420m isn't a super powerhouse, but it can manage all regular computing tasks just fine. It can also game quite well, and is easily overclockable to 2.2GHz.

 

if i told you a phenom II and core to quad performed similarly/on par with each other, and the early llano's were a die shrink of phenom 2, (all desktop of course) would that help you out any?

You might see if it is "Stars" based chip since that is mobile phenom 2, all that A6-3420m is ONLY 1.5 ghz, maybe you can find a Llano that is higher clocked? a Higher clock would really help.

 

It is a Stars based chip - there is a huge thread on this particular laptop on SD.

Overclocking is apparently ridiculously easy unlike the non-overclockable Trinity chips that just came out and offer little performance boost.

Benchmarks have always been something that are a bit annoying. I wish I could find gaming results for that laptop instead of synthetic benchmarks. Doing some research on Llano, the Intels smash it in FPU performance which is the reason so many benchmarks show it way behind. However, in gaming, the A6, A8, and A10 are said to be better than Intel's HD 4000 chip and this one has the APU plus 7670M.

 

What computer are you specifically talking about?

You mention an A6-3420M (Llano) and then you mention A6/A8/A10 (Trinity).

 

Acer Aspire 15.6 AMD Quad-Core 320GB Notebook at CircuitCity.com

That laptop. And I mentioned the others because it was relevant to the discussion of poor FPU performance being a large factor in synthetic benchmarks.

 

That is the same one I posted in the "Notebook and Tech Bargains" thread.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/notebook-tech-bargains/672232-399-97-acer-aspire-as5560g-7809-amd-a6-3420m-4gb-320gb-hdd-dvdrw-amd-radeon-hd-7670m-15-6-display-windows-7-hp-64-bit.html

It has gotten positive reviews by the majority of people. I'm concerned with how well it can cool the internals but it seems its not bad.

74-63 degrees Celcius is not alarming or uncommon.


Also worth noting, HP is selling the DM1Z with E-450 or E2-1800 for $399.99. This Acer seems like a no brainer in comparison but they are two very different size notebooks.

 

Pretty much all benchmarks you'll find will be at stock speeds. Overclocked to 2.2-2.4ghz, the A6 should be on par with a mobile C2Q, which is more than enough for most tasks.

 

Q9000 better CPU performance, A6 better battery life, cooler, (most likely) better GPU, and cheaper.

 

You won't find a laptop with an AMD APU that can match what your SLI 260Ms could do. The CPU power between the two are about equal when compared clock for clock. But going from your old setup to an APU will show you some serious performance gaps. It's about the same as going from a PC that gets a Vantage GPU score of 10K to a PC that manages a GPU score of maybe 4K.

 

I am not trying to sound rude but the 7670m has no chance beating a 260m on sli. Also the a6-3420m is less powerful compared to your q9000 cpu.

You need to get something like an i5 3210m and gt 650m gddr5 graphics to notice a decent leap from your current setup. A gt 650m gddr5 is twice as powerful as the 7670m and takes identical power consumption. i5 3210m nearly twice as fast as the a6-3420m and faster then your q9000 by a bit.

 

well @ 399 on sale it sure would wip my acer's but, even with 5gb ram hd4670 OCed and x9000.

the acer may have an edge but, that would be fully upgraded.

 

You do realise an x9000 will easily trounce the a6 3420m don't you on cpu tests as notebookcheck shows.

 

The A6 can be overclocked to 2.2-2.5 ghz (they all have unlocked multipliers, and AMD overvolted the hell out of them stock) and at those speeds it should be as powerful (or slightly more) than a Q9000. That's plenty for all but the most demanding games, and CPU requirements don't seem to be increasing much.