A6-5400K vs Athlon II X4 740
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II X4 740 outperforms A6-5400K by a whopping 111% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 740 and A6-5400K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1951 | 2498 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Athlon | no data |
| Architecture codename | Piledriver | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 1 October 2012 (11 years ago) | 2 October 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $71 | no data |
| Current price | no data | $163 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 740 and A6-5400K 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 740 and A6-5400K 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 | Socket FM2 | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 watt | 65 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 740 and A6-5400K are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 740 and A6-5400K. 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 7540D |
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 740 outperforms A6-5400K by 111% 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 740 outperforms A6-5400K by 112% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.73 | 0.82 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
The Athlon II X4 740 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-5400K in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 740 and A6-5400K, 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.
