A4-3300M vs Athlon II X4 640

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II X4 640
2010
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.45
+88.3%

Athlon II X4 640 outperforms A4-3300M by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II X4 640 and A4-3300M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking20982546
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.92no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD A-Series
Architecture codenamePropus (2009−2011)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date11 May 2010 (14 years ago)14 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$80no data
Current price$42 (0.5x MSRP)$61

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon II X4 640 and A4-3300M 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed3 GHz1.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz2.5 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size169 mm2228 mm2
Number of transistors300 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II X4 640 and A4-3300M 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
SocketAM3FS1
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A4-3300M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, DDR3 Memory Controller, Radeon HD 6480G

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A4-3300M are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A4-3300M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6480G

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A4-3300M.

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.

Athlon II X4 640 1.45
+88.3%
A4-3300M 0.77

Athlon II X4 640 outperforms A4-3300M by 88% based on our aggregate 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%

Athlon II X4 640 2238
+88.7%
A4-3300M 1186

Athlon II X4 640 outperforms A4-3300M by 89% 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%

Athlon II X4 640 310
+36.6%
A4-3300M 227

Athlon II X4 640 outperforms A4-3300M by 37% 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%

Athlon II X4 640 938
+135%
A4-3300M 399

Athlon II X4 640 outperforms A4-3300M by 135% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.45 0.77
Recency 11 May 2010 14 June 2011
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

The Athlon II X4 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3300M in performance tests.

Note that Athlon II X4 640 is a desktop processor while A4-3300M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 640 and A4-3300M, 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 Athlon II X4 640
Athlon II X4 640
AMD A4-3300M
A4-3300M

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.


3.7 1285 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 99 votes

Rate A4-3300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II X4 640 or A4-3300M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.