Ultra 5 225F vs A4-6320
Primary details
Comparing A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in the ranking | 2503 | not rated |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
Power efficiency | 1.40 | no data |
Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
Release date | December 2013 (11 years ago) | January 2025 |
Detailed specifications
A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F 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) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
Threads | 2 | 10 |
Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 4.9 GHz |
L1 cache | 96 KB | 112 KB (per core) |
L2 cache | 1024 KB | 3 MB (per core) |
L3 cache | no data | 21 MB (shared) |
Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
Die size | 246 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | no data |
Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 17,800 million |
64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F 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 | 1851 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
AES-NI | + | + |
FMA | + | - |
AVX | + | + |
PowerNow | + | - |
PowerGating | + | - |
VirusProtect | + | - |
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F are enumerated here.
AMD-V | + | - |
VT-d | no data | + |
VT-x | no data | + |
IOMMU 2.0 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
Supported memory types | DDR3-1600 | DDR5 |
Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon™ HD 8370D | N/A |
จำนวนพาธไลน์ | 128 | no data |
Enduro | + | - |
Switchable graphics | + | - |
UVD | + | - |
VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F integrated GPUs.
DisplayPort | + | - |
HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
DirectX | DirectX® 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F.
PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
Physical cores | 2 | 10 |
Threads | 2 | 10 |
Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
Ultra 5 225F has 400% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-6320 and Core Ultra 5 225F, 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.