Core i3-370M vs A4-5300
Aggregate performance score
A4-5300 outperforms Core i3-370M by a moderate 19% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-5300 and Core i3-370M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2439 | 2562 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series (Desktop) | Intel Core i3 |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Arrandale (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (11 years ago) | 20 June 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $245 |
| Current price | $49 | $30 (0.1x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A4-5300 and Core i3-370M 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 2500 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 3 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 81+114 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C for rPGA, 105 °C for BGA |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 382+177 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on A4-5300 and Core i3-370M 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 | FM2 | PGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-5300 and Core i3-370M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | DDR3-1600 RAM, PCIe 2, MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, AES, AVX, XOP, FMA3, FMA4 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | + |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
A4-5300 and Core i3-370M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-5300 and Core i3-370M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-5300 and Core i3-370M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 17.1 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 7480D | Intel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® Processors |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 667 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A4-5300 and Core i3-370M integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-5300 and Core i3-370M.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
A4-5300 outperforms Core i3-370M by 19% 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%
A4-5300 outperforms Core i3-370M by 19% 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%
A4-5300 outperforms Core i3-370M by 11% 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%
Core i3-370M outperforms A4-5300 by 29% 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%
A4-5300 outperforms Core i3-370M by 2% 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%
Core i3-370M outperforms A4-5300 by 43% 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%
Core i3-370M outperforms A4-5300 by 13% 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%
A4-5300 outperforms Core i3-370M by 67% 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%
Core i3-370M outperforms A4-5300 by 37% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.88 | 0.74 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 20 June 2010 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
The A4-5300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-370M in performance tests.
Note that A4-5300 is a desktop processor while Core i3-370M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-5300 and Core i3-370M, 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.
