i3-3110M vs A6-9400

VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-9400
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
1.71
+66%
Core i3-3110M
2012
2 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.03

A6-9400 outperforms Core i3-3110M by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20532455
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Core i3
Power efficiency2.492.78
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date16 March 2019 (5 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$225

Detailed specifications

A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads24
Base clock speed3.4 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cache160K64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (shared)256K (per core)
L3 cacheno data3 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size250 mm2118 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90C (PGA); 105C (BGA)
Number of transistors3,100 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-

Compatibility

Information on A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M 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 configuration11
SocketAM4FCBGA1023,FCPGA988
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AVX
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Identity Protection-+
Anti-Theftno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardRadeon R5Intel HD Graphics 4000
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz
InTru 3Dno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes816

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.

A6-9400 1.71
+66%
i3-3110M 1.03

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.

A6-9400 2717
+66.1%
i3-3110M 1636

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.71 1.03
Recency 16 March 2019 1 June 2012
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

A6-9400 has a 66% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 6 years.

i3-3110M, on the other hand, has 100% more threads, a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

The A6-9400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-3110M in performance tests.

Note that A6-9400 is a desktop processor while Core i3-3110M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-9400 and Core i3-3110M, 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 A6-9400
A6-9400
Intel Core i3-3110M
Core i3-3110M

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.


2.7 26 votes

Rate A6-9400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 797 votes

Rate Core i3-3110M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-9400 or Core i3-3110M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.