A4-3300M vs A8-6410

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-6410
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.12
+49.3%
A4-3300M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.75

A8-6410 outperforms A4-3300M by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-6410 and A4-3300M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23962655
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD A-Series
Power efficiency7.072.03
Architecture codenameBeema (2014)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date1 June 2014 (10 years ago)14 June 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A8-6410 and A4-3300M 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2 GHz1.9 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2.5 GHz
L1 cacheno data128 KB (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data228 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors930 Million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A8-6410 and A4-3300M 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 configurationno data1
SocketFT3bFS1
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-6410 and A4-3300M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-6410 and A4-3300M are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-6410 and A4-3300M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3L-1866DDR3
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 GraphicsAMD Radeon HD 6480G
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A8-6410 and A4-3300M integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A8-6410 and A4-3300M integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-6410 and A4-3300M.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

A8-6410 1.12
+49.3%
A4-3300M 0.75

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.

A8-6410 1772
+49.4%
A4-3300M 1186

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.

A8-6410 223
A4-3300M 228
+2.2%

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.

A8-6410 587
+49.7%
A4-3300M 392

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.

A8-6410 1887
+8.3%
A4-3300M 1742

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.

A8-6410 5872
+71.8%
A4-3300M 3417

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.

A8-6410 2866
+84.2%
A4-3300M 1556

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

A8-6410 24.3
+65.4%
A4-3300M 40.2

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.

A8-6410 2
+82.1%
A4-3300M 1

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.12 0.75
Recency 1 June 2014 14 June 2011
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

A8-6410 has a 49.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The A8-6410 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3300M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-6410 and A4-3300M, 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 A8-6410
A8-6410
AMD A4-3300M
A4-3300M

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.


3.6 323 votes

Rate A8-6410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 110 votes

Rate A4-3300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-6410 or A4-3300M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.