A6-3400M vs A6-6400K

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-6400K
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.95
+26.7%
A6-3400M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.75

A6-6400K outperforms A6-3400M by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-6400K and A6-3400M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25032653
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD A-Series (Desktop)AMD A-Series
Power efficiency1.382.03
Architecture codenameRichland (2013−2014)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date1 June 2013 (11 years ago)14 June 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A6-6400K and A6-3400M 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed3.9 GHz1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz2.3 GHz
L1 cache96 KB128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1024 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size246 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature70 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)70 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on A6-6400K and A6-3400M 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 configuration11
SocketFM2FS1
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-6400K and A6-3400M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE1-4a, AES, ABM, AVX, BMI1, AMD64, VT, EVP, Turbo Core 3.03DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-6400K and A6-3400M are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-6400K and A6-3400M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1866DDR3
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 8470DAMD Radeon HD 6520G
Number of pipelines192no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-6400K and A6-3400M integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A6-6400K and A6-3400M integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 11no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-6400K and A6-3400M.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

A6-6400K 0.95
+26.7%
A6-3400M 0.75

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.

A6-6400K 1504
+26.3%
A6-3400M 1191

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.

A6-6400K 410
+94.3%
A6-3400M 211

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.

A6-6400K 576
+10.3%
A6-3400M 522

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.

A6-6400K 3068
+103%
A6-3400M 1512

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.

A6-6400K 5079
+3.2%
A6-3400M 4922

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.

A6-6400K 2654
+24.3%
A6-3400M 2135

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.

A6-6400K 2
A6-3400M 2
+7.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.95 0.75
Integrated graphics card 0.97 0.78
Recency 1 June 2013 14 June 2011
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

A6-6400K has a 26.7% higher aggregate performance score, 24.4% faster integrated GPU, and an age advantage of 1 year.

A6-3400M, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

The A6-6400K is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-3400M in performance tests.

Note that A6-6400K is a desktop processor while A6-3400M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-6400K and A6-3400M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A6-6400K
A6-6400K
AMD A6-3400M
A6-3400M

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 171 vote

Rate A6-6400K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 172 votes

Rate A6-3400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-6400K or A6-3400M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.