A4-3310MX vs Ryzen 7 PRO 1700

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 7 PRO 1700
2017
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
9.27
+1792%
A4-3310MX
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.49

Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 outperforms A4-3310MX by a whopping 1792% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and A4-3310MX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking8292900
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 7AMD A-Series
Power efficiency13.501.32
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date29 June 2017 (7 years ago)14 June 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and A4-3310MX 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads162
Base clock speed3 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz2.5 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier30no data
L1 cache96K (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm32 nm
Die size192 mm2228 mm2
Number of transistors4,800 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and A4-3310MX 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketAM4FS1
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and A4-3310MX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G
AES-NI+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and A4-3310MX are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and A4-3310MX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR3
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-AMD Radeon HD 6480G (444 MHz)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and A4-3310MX.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes20no 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.

Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 9.27
+1792%
A4-3310MX 0.49

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.

Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 14717
+1782%
A4-3310MX 782

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.

Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 1036
+255%
A4-3310MX 292

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.

Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 5214
+939%
A4-3310MX 502

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.27 0.49
Recency 29 June 2017 14 June 2011
Physical cores 8 2
Threads 16 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has a 1791.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

A4-3310MX, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3310MX in performance tests.

Be aware that Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 is a server/workstation processor while A4-3310MX is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and A4-3310MX, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700
AMD A4-3310MX
A4-3310MX

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 102 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 29 votes

Rate A4-3310MX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 or A4-3310MX, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.