AMD Athlon 200GE vs Intel Core i5-6400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data delivers a clear and consistent verdict across every benchmark in the comparison: the Intel Core i5-6400 wins all seven head-to-head tests. There are no mixed results, no workload-dependent reversals, and no category where the AMD Athlon 200GE takes a lead. The wins for Intel range from a narrow 3.7% margin in several Cinebench tests to a commanding 39% advantage in Geekbench multicore.

Looking at the benchmark split, the Intel processor's smallest victories come in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-6400 scores 364 against the Athlon's 350, a 3.8% edge. The remaining Cinebench tests (R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, R23 multicore, R23 singlecore) all show the same 3.7% gap, with Intel scoring 1517 versus 1461, 214 versus 206, 3614 versus 3479, and 510 versus 491 respectively. These are tight margins that suggest the two chips are closely matched in rendering workloads.

The picture changes dramatically in Geekbench, where the Intel part stretches its lead. In Geekbench singlecore, the i5-6400 posts 1048 against 925, an 11.7% advantage. The multicore result is even more lopsided: 3134 versus 1912, a 39% gap. This is the largest win in the entire comparison and indicates that the Intel processor handles parallel workloads with significantly more efficiency, likely due to its additional physical cores.

The Athlon 200GE's only consolation is that its average benchmark score of 1261 sits close to the i5-6400's 1307, a difference of roughly 3.6%. Its percentile rank among all CPUs is 34, just one point below Intel's 35. In practical terms, the database places both chips in the same performance tier overall, despite the Intel part winning every individual test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two processors is substantial, and the data sheds light on why the Intel part consistently outperforms the AMD chip. The Athlon 200GE is built on AMD's Zen architecture, codenamed Raven Ridge, using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 4,950 million transistors onto a 209.8 mm² die. The Intel Core i5-6400 uses Skylake architecture, also on a 14 nm node, but fabricated by Intel with a smaller 177 mm² die and no transistor count listed in the database.

Core and thread configurations diverge sharply. The Athlon offers 2 cores and 4 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to reach four execution threads. The i5-6400 provides 4 physical cores and 4 threads, meaning it does not use hyper-threading. This fundamental difference explains the Geekbench multicore result: the Intel part has twice the physical core count, and the 39% score gap reflects that advantage.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Athlon 200GE allocates 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The i5-6400 uses 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. Interestingly, the Intel chip has more total L3 (6 MB versus 4 MB) but smaller per-core L1 and L2 allocations. The Athlon's larger per-core caches may help in latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks, yet the benchmark data shows Intel still leads in singlecore tests.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The Athlon runs at a fixed 3.20 GHz base clock with no boost capability. The i5-6400 has a 2.70 GHz base clock but can boost to 3.30 GHz, giving it a higher maximum frequency. The Intel part's ability to ramp up to 3.30 GHz likely contributes to its singlecore wins, despite a lower base clock. The Athlon's lack of boost means it operates at a constant frequency, which may limit peak performance.

Memory support shows another differentiator. Both support DDR4 in dual-channel mode, but the Athlon achieves 42.7 GB/s bandwidth against Intel's 34.1 GB/s. The AMD chip's higher theoretical memory bandwidth is notable, yet it does not translate into benchmark victories. PCIe connectivity also favors Intel: the i5-6400 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Athlon offers Gen 3 with only 8 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Athlon 200GE includes Radeon Vega 3, while the i5-6400 ships with HD Graphics 530. The database records no graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison is possible from the data. Production status separates the two: the Athlon is listed as Active, while the i5-6400 is End-of-life. The Athlon launched on 2018-09-05, the i5-6400 on 2015-07-01.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core i5-6400 is the faster processor in every measured workload. Its wins span all seven head-to-head benchmarks, from the tight 3.7% Cinebench margins to the 39% Geekbench multicore blowout. Anyone selecting between these two strictly on performance should choose the Intel part.

However, the Athlon 200GE is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 1261 sits within 3.6% of the Intel chip's 1307, and its percentile rank of 34 trails by only one point. In Cinebench workloads, the gap narrows to under 4%, suggesting the Athlon is competitive in rendering tasks that scale with threads but not necessarily with raw core count. The Athlon also draws 35 W TDP against Intel's 65 W, and the database lists it as Active production status while Intel is End-of-life.

The choice depends on priorities. For maximum performance across all benchmark categories, the i5-6400 is the clear pick. For a lower-power chip that remains in production and comes within striking distance in Cinebench, the Athlon 200GE holds appeal. The Geekbench multicore result is the decisive factor: a 39% deficit is too large to ignore for multi-threaded applications. The i5-6400 also carries a higher launch MSRP of $182 versus $55 for the Athlon, though the database notes the Intel part is no longer in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the comparison?

A: The Intel Core i5-6400 wins all 7 head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD Athlon 200GE records 0 wins.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench multicore, where the i5-6400 scores 3134 against the Athlon's 1912, a 39% difference.

Q: How close are the two in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The i5-6400 scores 3614 and the Athlon scores 3479, a 3.7% margin in favor of Intel.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: No. The Athlon 200GE has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i5-6400 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Athlon 200GE has a TDP of 35 W, and the i5-6400 has a TDP of 65 W.

Q: Which processor has a higher singlecore Geekbench score?

A: The i5-6400 leads with 1048 against the Athlon's 925, an 11.7% advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a consistent pattern of Intel victories, but the margins vary significantly by workload. Starting with Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-6400 scores 364 against the Athlon's 350, a 3.8% edge. This is the closest result in the entire comparison, indicating that the AMD chip's two cores with four threads can nearly match Intel's four physical cores in this specific rendering test.

Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the gap remains nearly identical. Intel scores 1517, AMD scores 1461, a 3.7% difference. The R20 singlecore test shows the same 3.7% margin, with Intel at 214 and AMD at 206. Cinebench R23 multicore continues the trend: Intel 3614, AMD 3479, again 3.7%. The R23 singlecore result mirrors this exactly, with Intel at 510 and AMD at 491.

The Geekbench tests break the pattern of narrow margins. In Geekbench singlecore, Intel scores 1048 against AMD's 925, an 11.7% win. This is more than triple the Cinebench singlecore gap, suggesting that the Geekbench workload favors the Intel architecture's higher boost clock of 3.30 GHz over the Athlon's fixed 3.20 GHz. The singlecore result also underscores the benefit of Intel's newer architecture in latency-sensitive tasks.

Geekbench multicore delivers the most decisive result. Intel scores 3134, AMD scores 1912, a 39% gap. This is the single largest delta in the comparison and aligns with the core count difference: the i5-6400 has 4 physical cores while the Athlon has only 2. The 39% figure likely reflects both the core advantage and the Intel chip's higher per-core performance in this benchmark.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. The i5-6400 averages 1307 across all tests, while the Athlon averages 1261, a 3.6% difference. The percentile ranks are similarly close: Intel at 35, AMD at 34. In the nearest rivals data, the Athlon 200GE sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i3-7100T and 0.2% of the Intel Xeon W-2102. The i5-6400 sits within 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-3770T and 0.8% of the Intel Core i7-3610QE.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification category. The Athlon 200GE provides 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i5-6400 provides 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz for AMD and 2.70 GHz for Intel, but the Intel part adds a 3.30 GHz boost clock that the AMD chip lacks entirely.

Power and platform requirements diverge. The Athlon runs at 35 W TDP on AMD Socket AM4, while the i5-6400 runs at 65 W TDP on Intel Socket 1151. The AMD chip uses Zen architecture with a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, 4,950 million transistors, and a 209.8 mm² die. The Intel chip uses Skylake architecture with a 14 nm Intel process, no recorded transistor count, and a 177 mm² die.

Cache configurations differ in size and allocation. The Athlon has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. The i5-6400 has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth favors AMD at 42.7 GB/s versus Intel's 34.1 GB/s, though both support DDR4 in dual-channel mode. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity gives Intel the edge: 16 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU versus AMD's 8 Gen 3 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: Radeon Vega 3 on the Athlon, HD Graphics 530 on the i5-6400. The Athlon is marked Active production status with a launch MSRP of $55, while the i5-6400 is End-of-life with a launch MSRP of $182. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both target the desktop market.