Atom C3958 vs A4-7210
Aggregate performance score
Atom C3958 outperforms A4-7210 by a whopping 138% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-7210 and Atom C3958 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2431 | 1750 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.53 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD A-Series | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 3.94 | 7.54 |
| Architecture codename | Carrizo-L (2015) | Goldmont (2016−2017) |
| Release date | 7 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 15 August 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A4-7210 and Atom C3958 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 83 °C |
| Number of transistors | 930 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A4-7210 and Atom C3958 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FT3b | FCBGA1310 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-25 Watt | 31 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-7210 and Atom C3958. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | FMA4 | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| QuickAssist | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
Security technologies
A4-7210 and Atom C3958 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-7210 and Atom C3958 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 A4-7210 and Atom C3958. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-1600 | DDR4: 2400 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | 1 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R3 Graphics | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A4-7210 and Atom C3958 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A4-7210 and Atom C3958 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-7210 and Atom C3958.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
| USB revision | no data | 3 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 16 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 16 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | 4x10/2.5/1 GBE |
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 | 1.04 | 2.47 |
| Recency | 7 May 2015 | 15 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 31 Watt |
A4-7210 has 158.3% lower power consumption.
Atom C3958, on the other hand, has a 137.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Atom C3958 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-7210 in performance tests.
Be aware that A4-7210 is a notebook processor while Atom C3958 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-7210 and Atom C3958, 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.
