Athlon II X3 450 vs A4-6300
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II X3 450 outperforms A4-6300 by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-6300 and Athlon II X3 450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2425 | 2259 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.15 | 4.89 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Rana (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 21 September 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $45 |
| Current price | $35 | $22 (0.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon II X3 450 has 127% better value for money than A4-6300.
Detailed specifications
A4-6300 and Athlon II X3 450 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) | 3 (Tri-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 3 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 96 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1024 KB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 169 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on A4-6300 and Athlon II X3 450 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 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-6300 and Athlon II X3 450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| 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 Athlon II X3 450 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-6300 and Athlon II X3 450. 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 | no data |
| 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 Athlon II X3 450 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A4-6300 and Athlon II X3 450 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-6300 and Athlon II X3 450.
| 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 X3 450 outperforms A4-6300 by 29% based on our aggregate 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%
Athlon II X3 450 outperforms A4-6300 by 28% 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 Athlon II X3 450 by 15% 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 X3 450 outperforms A4-6300 by 45% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.92 | 1.19 |
| Recency | 1 June 2013 | 21 September 2010 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 3 |
| Threads | 2 | 3 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
The Athlon II X3 450 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-6300 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-6300 and Athlon II X3 450, 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.
