Athlon II X2 270 vs A4-5000
Aggregated performance score
Athlon II X2 270 outperforms A4-5000 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2458 | 2455 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.15 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD A-Series | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kabini (2013−2014) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (10 years ago) | 1 July 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $100 |
| Current price | $248 | $33 (0.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 117 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 410 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270 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 | FT3 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, DDR3L-1600 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | no data |
| FMA | FMA4 | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| PowerNow | + | no data |
| PowerGating | + | no data |
| Out-of-band client management | - | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR2, DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | 1 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 8330 | no data |
| Enduro | + | no data |
| Switchable graphics | 1 | no data |
| UVD | + | no data |
| VCE | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
Athlon II X2 270 outperforms A4-5000 by 1% 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%
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%
Athlon II X2 270 outperforms A4-5000 by 114% 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%
Athlon II X2 270 outperforms A4-5000 by 22% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.83 | 0.84 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 1 July 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270.
Be aware that A4-5000 is a notebook processor while Athlon II X2 270 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-5000 and Athlon II X2 270, 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.
