A4-3400 vs Athlon II X2 240
Aggregated performance score
A4-3400 outperforms Athlon II X2 240 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X2 240 and A4-3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2609 | 2590 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.28 | 5.85 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Regor (2009−2013) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | July 2009 (14 years ago) | 7 September 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $35 | no data |
| Current price | $25 (0.7x MSRP) | $27 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
A4-3400 has 78% better value for money than Athlon II X2 240.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X2 240 and A4-3400 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 | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 117 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 410 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X2 240 and A4-3400 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 | AM3 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X2 240 and A4-3400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X2 240 and A4-3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Radeon HD 6410D |
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.
A4-3400 outperforms Athlon II X2 240 by 4% based on our aggregated 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%
A4-3400 outperforms Athlon II X2 240 by 5% 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%
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%
A4-3400 outperforms Athlon II X2 240 by 1% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.67 | 0.70 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon II X2 240 and A4-3400.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X2 240 and A4-3400, 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.
