A6-4400M vs Core 2 Duo E6700
Aggregated performance score
A6-4400M outperforms Core 2 Duo E6700 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Duo E6700 and A6-4400M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2642 | 2628 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.98 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Duo (Desktop) | AMD A-Series |
| Architecture codename | Conroe (2006−2007) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | no data | 15 May 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $18 | $95 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Duo E6700 and A6-4400M 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 | 2.66 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus support | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 246 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Duo E6700 and A6-4400M 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FS1r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo E6700 and A6-4400M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo E6700 and A6-4400M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo E6700 and A6-4400M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | unknown |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 7520G |
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.
A6-4400M outperforms Core 2 Duo E6700 by 2% 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%
A6-4400M outperforms Core 2 Duo E6700 by 2% 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%
Core 2 Duo E6700 outperforms A6-4400M by 34% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Core 2 Duo E6700 outperforms A6-4400M by 18% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core 2 Duo E6700 outperforms A6-4400M by 50% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core 2 Duo E6700 outperforms A6-4400M by 30% in 3DMark06 CPU.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.64 | 0.65 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Duo E6700 and A6-4400M.
Note that Core 2 Duo E6700 is a desktop processor while A6-4400M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6700 and A6-4400M, 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.
