A4-5300 vs Core i7-2960XM
Aggregate performance score
i7-2960XM outperforms A4-5300 by a whopping 249% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-2960XM and A4-5300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1549 | 2449 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.06 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i7 | AMD A-Series (Desktop) |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 4 September 2011 (12 years ago) | 2 October 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,096 | no data |
| Current price | $499 (0.5x MSRP) | $46 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-2960XM and A4-5300 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 | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 216 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-2960XM and A4-5300 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 | FCPGA988 | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-2960XM and A4-5300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | DDR3-1600 RAM, PCIe 2, MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, AES, AVX, XOP, FMA3, FMA4 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Core i7-2960XM and A4-5300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-2960XM and A4-5300 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 i7-2960XM and A4-5300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | AMD Radeon HD 7480D |
| Quick Sync Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.3 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-2960XM and A4-5300 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-2960XM and A4-5300.
| 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.
Core i7-2960XM outperforms A4-5300 by 249% 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%
Core i7-2960XM outperforms A4-5300 by 248% 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%
Core i7-2960XM outperforms A4-5300 by 58% 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%
Core i7-2960XM outperforms A4-5300 by 265% 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 i7-2960XM outperforms A4-5300 by 80% 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 i7-2960XM outperforms A4-5300 by 321% 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 i7-2960XM outperforms A4-5300 by 199% in 3DMark06 CPU.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Core i7-2960XM outperforms A4-5300 by 337% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.07 | 0.88 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.66 | 0.72 |
| Recency | 4 September 2011 | 2 October 2012 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Core i7-2960XM is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-5300 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core i7-2960XM is a notebook processor while A4-5300 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-2960XM and A4-5300, 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.
