Ryzen 5 2600 vs A4-3300M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-3300M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.77
Ryzen 5 2600
2018
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
8.53
+1008%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms A4-3300M by a whopping 1008% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-3300M and Ryzen 5 2600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking2524815
Place by popularitynot in top-10027
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data19.68
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD Ryzen 5
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Pinnacle Riege (Zen+)
Release date14 June 2011 (12 years ago)19 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199
Current price$61 $147 (0.7x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A4-3300M and Ryzen 5 2600 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 cores2 (Dual-core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads212
Base clock speed1.9 GHz3.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz3.9 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)3 MB
L3 cache0 KB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm12 nm
Die size228 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data95 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on A4-3300M and Ryzen 5 2600 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFS1AM4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3300M and Ryzen 5 2600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, DDR3 Memory Controller, Radeon HD 6480GDDR4-2933 RAM, PCIe 3, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NIno data+
FMAno data+
AVXno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3300M and Ryzen 5 2600 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3300M and Ryzen 5 2600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data128 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data46.933 GB/s
ECC memory supportno data+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6480G-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-3300M and Ryzen 5 2600.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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.

A4-3300M 0.77
Ryzen 5 2600 8.53
+1008%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms A4-3300M by 1008% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

A4-3300M 1186
Ryzen 5 2600 13200
+1013%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms A4-3300M by 1013% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

A4-3300M 227
Ryzen 5 2600 1152
+407%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms A4-3300M by 407% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

A4-3300M 399
Ryzen 5 2600 4849
+1115%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms A4-3300M by 1115% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

A4-3300M 1742
Ryzen 5 2600 4726
+171%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms A4-3300M by 171% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A4-3300M 3417
Ryzen 5 2600 28173
+724%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms A4-3300M by 724% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A4-3300M 1556
Ryzen 5 2600 9290
+497%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms A4-3300M by 497% in 3DMark06 CPU.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

A4-3300M 40.2
Ryzen 5 2600 5.5
+631%

A4-3300M outperforms Ryzen 5 2600 by 631% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

A4-3300M 1
Ryzen 5 2600 14
+1124%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms A4-3300M by 1124% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.77 8.53
Recency 14 June 2011 19 April 2018
Physical cores 2 6
Threads 2 12
Chip lithography 32 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 65 Watt

The Ryzen 5 2600 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3300M in performance tests.

Be aware that A4-3300M is a notebook processor while Ryzen 5 2600 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3300M and Ryzen 5 2600, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A4-3300M
A4-3300M
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Ryzen 5 2600

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3 98 votes

Rate A4-3300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 14086 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 2600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-3300M or Ryzen 5 2600, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.