A8-3800 vs i3-330M
Aggregate performance score
A8-3800 outperforms Core i3-330M by a whopping 102% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-330M and A8-3800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2750 | 2271 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i3 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.73 | 1.88 |
| Architecture codename | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 30 June 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $49 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core i3-330M 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 | 2.13 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.13 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 1.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 1 × 2.5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 16 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 81+114 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C for rPGA, 105 °C for BGA | no data |
| Number of transistors | 382 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-330M 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 | BGA1288,PGA988 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-330M and A8-3800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| FMA | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i3-330M 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 Core i3-330M and A8-3800 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-330M and A8-3800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 17.051 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® Processors | AMD Radeon HD 6550D |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 667 MHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-330M and A8-3800 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-330M and A8-3800.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.64 | 1.29 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 30 June 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
i3-330M has 85.7% lower power consumption.
A8-3800, on the other hand, has a 101.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 100% more physical cores.
The A8-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-330M in performance tests.
Be aware that Core i3-330M is a notebook processor while A8-3800 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-330M and A8-3800, 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.
