A8-3520M vs A4-6300
Aggregated performance score
A8-3520M outperforms A4-6300 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-6300 and A8-3520M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2401 | 2392 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.15 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD A-Series |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (10 years ago) | 20 December 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $35 | $134 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A4-6300 and A8-3520M 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 96 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1024 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on A4-6300 and A8-3520M 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 | FS1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-6300 and A8-3520M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G, DDR3(L)-1333 Memory Controller |
| AES-NI | 1 | no data |
| FMA | FMA4 | no data |
| AVX | 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 A4-6300 and A8-3520M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-6300 and A8-3520M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1600 | DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon™ HD 8370D | AMD Radeon HD 6620G |
| Number of pipelines | 128 | no data |
| Enduro | + | no data |
| Switchable graphics | 1 | no data |
| UVD | + | no data |
| VCE | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A4-6300 and A8-3520M integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A4-6300 and A8-3520M integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-6300 and A8-3520M.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
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.
A8-3520M outperforms A4-6300 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%
A8-3520M outperforms A4-6300 by 1% 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%
A4-6300 outperforms A8-3520M by 48% 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%
A8-3520M outperforms A4-6300 by 23% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| Recency | 1 June 2013 | 20 December 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A4-6300 and A8-3520M.
Note that A4-6300 is a desktop processor while A8-3520M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-6300 and A8-3520M, 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.
