Xeon E5-2407 v2 vs A4-6300
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2407 v2 outperforms A4-6300 by a whopping 146% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2533 | 1832 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.34 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 1.30 | 2.60 |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Ivy Bridge-EN (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $476 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2 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 | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 6.4 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 96 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1024 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 10 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 160 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | 76 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2 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 | 2 |
| Socket | FM2 | FCLGA1356 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | FMA4 | - |
| AVX | AVX | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| 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 | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 46 Bit |
Security technologies
A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1600 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 384 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 32 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon™ HD 8370D | no data |
| Number of pipelines | 128 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 24 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.90 | 2.21 |
| Recency | 1 June 2013 | 1 September 2013 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 80 Watt |
A4-6300 has 23.1% lower power consumption.
Xeon E5-2407 v2, on the other hand, has a 145.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.
The Xeon E5-2407 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-6300 in performance tests.
Note that A4-6300 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5-2407 v2 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-6300 and Xeon E5-2407 v2, 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.
