A8-3800 vs Atom 330
Aggregate performance score
A8-3800 outperforms Atom 330 by a whopping 432% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3491 | 2591 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Atom | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.16 | 0.76 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Diamondville (2008−2009) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 2 April 2008 (17 years ago) | 30 June 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $43 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Atom 330 and A8-3800 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.1 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Bus type | FSB | no data |
| Bus rate | 533.33 MT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 12 | no data |
| L1 cache | 112 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 51.9276 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 85 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 94 Million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.9V-1.1625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Atom 330 and A8-3800 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | PBGA437 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom 330 and A8-3800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Atom 330 and A8-3800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom 330 and A8-3800 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom 330 and A8-3800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | AMD Radeon HD 6550D |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.22 | 1.17 |
| Recency | 2 April 2008 | 30 June 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 65 Watt |
Atom 330 has 712.5% lower power consumption.
A8-3800, on the other hand, has a 431.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD A8-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Atom 330 in performance tests.
Be aware that Atom 330 is a notebook processor while A8-3800 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
