i5-3340 vs A8-3500M
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-3340 outperforms A8-3500M by a whopping 203% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-3500M and Core i5-3340 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2540 | 1703 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD A-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.37 | 3.27 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | no data |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 July 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A8-3500M and Core i5-3340 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 6 MB Intel® Smart Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 67 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A8-3500M and Core i5-3340 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 | FS1 | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 77 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3500M and Core i5-3340. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| FDI | no data | + |
Security technologies
A8-3500M and Core i5-3340 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3500M and Core i5-3340 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3500M and Core i5-3340. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6620G | Intel HD Graphics 2500 |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A8-3500M and Core i5-3340 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3500M and Core i5-3340.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.91 | 2.76 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.88 | 0.69 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 1 July 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 77 Watt |
A8-3500M has 27.5% faster integrated GPU, and 120% lower power consumption.
i5-3340, on the other hand, has a 203.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.
The Core i5-3340 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-3500M in performance tests.
Be aware that A8-3500M is a notebook processor while Core i5-3340 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3500M and Core i5-3340, 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.
