A4-3300 vs Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and A4-3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 2651 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.72 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2009) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | no data | 7 September 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $50 | $40 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and A4-3300 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Bus support | 1000 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 228 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and A4-3300 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and A4-3300 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and A4-3300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Radeon HD 6410D |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and A4-3300.
| PCIe version | no data | 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.
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%
A4-3300 outperforms Athlon 64 X2 4600+ by 34% 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%
A4-3300 outperforms Athlon 64 X2 4600+ by 31% 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%
A4-3300 outperforms Athlon 64 X2 4600+ by 29% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
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.
