Phenom II X3 P820 vs A6-3400M

VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-3400M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.75
+13.6%
Phenom II X3 P820
2010
3 cores / 3 threads, 25 Watt
0.66

A6-3400M outperforms Phenom II X3 P820 by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-3400M and Phenom II X3 P820 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26522740
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-Series3x AMD Phenom II
Power efficiency2.032.50
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Champlain (2010−2011)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)12 May 2010 (14 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A6-3400M and Phenom II X3 P820 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)3 (Tri-Core)
Threads43
Base clock speed1.4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rateno data3600 MHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)384 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1.5 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size228 mm2no data
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A6-3400M and Phenom II X3 P820 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 configuration1no data
SocketFS1S1
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt25 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-3400M and Phenom II X3 P820. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480GVirtualization, AMD64, Advanced Virus Protection, SSE(1,2,3,4a)
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-3400M and Phenom II X3 P820 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-3400M and Phenom II X3 P820. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6520Gno 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.

A6-3400M 0.75
+13.6%
Phenom II X3 P820 0.66

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.

A6-3400M 1512
Phenom II X3 P820 1560
+3.1%

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.

A6-3400M 4922
+18.1%
Phenom II X3 P820 4169

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.

A6-3400M 2135
+4.5%
Phenom II X3 P820 2043

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.

A6-3400M 2
+15.6%
Phenom II X3 P820 2

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.75 0.66
Recency 14 June 2011 12 May 2010
Physical cores 4 3
Threads 4 3
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 25 Watt

A6-3400M has a 13.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Phenom II X3 P820, on the other hand, has 40% lower power consumption.

The A6-3400M is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X3 P820 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-3400M and Phenom II X3 P820, 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 A6-3400M
A6-3400M
AMD Phenom II X3 P820
Phenom II X3 P820

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.


3.6 172 votes

Rate A6-3400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 48 votes

Rate Phenom II X3 P820 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-3400M or Phenom II X3 P820, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.