A6-7310 vs Athlon II X4 640
Aggregate performance score
A6-7310 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by a significant 20% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2089 | 1934 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.92 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD A-Series |
| Architecture codename | Propus (2009−2011) | Carrizo-L (2015) |
| Release date | 11 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 7 May 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
| Current price | $49 (0.6x MSRP) | $452 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310 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 | 3 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2048 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 300 million | 930 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM3 | FP4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 12-25 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | FMA4 |
| AVX | no data | + |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| PowerNow | no data | + |
| PowerGating | no data | + |
| Out-of-band client management | no data | - |
| VirusProtect | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | 1 |
| IOMMU 2.0 | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3L-1866 |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R4 Graphics |
| Enduro | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
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.
A6-7310 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by 20% 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%
A6-7310 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by 20% 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 outperforms A6-7310 by 36% 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 outperforms A6-7310 by 56% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.45 | 1.74 |
| Recency | 11 May 2010 | 7 May 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 12 Watt |
The A6-7310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 640 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon II X4 640 is a desktop processor while A6-7310 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 640 and A6-7310, 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.
