A4-3400 vs E2-3800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-3800
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
0.75
+5.6%

E2-3800 outperforms A4-3400 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-3800 and A4-3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26702710
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD A-Seriesno data
Power efficiency4.561.00
Architecture codenameKabini (2013−2014)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date23 May 2013 (11 years ago)7 September 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

E2-3800 and A4-3400 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 speedno data2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed1.3 GHz2.7 GHz
L1 cache128 KB128 KB (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB512 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size107 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)90 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-3800 and A4-3400 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
SocketFT3FM1
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3800 and A4-3400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVXno data
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-3800 and A4-3400 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-3800 and A4-3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1600DDR3
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 8280Radeon HD 6410D
Number of pipelines128no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-3800 and A4-3400 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by E2-3800 and A4-3400 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-3800 and A4-3400.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes4no 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.

E2-3800 0.75
+5.6%
A4-3400 0.71

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.

E2-3800 1152
+6.1%
A4-3400 1086

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.

E2-3800 136
A4-3400 289
+113%

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.

E2-3800 389
A4-3400 485
+24.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.75 0.71
Recency 23 May 2013 7 September 2011
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 65 Watt

E2-3800 has a 5.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between E2-3800 and A4-3400.

Be aware that E2-3800 is a notebook processor while A4-3400 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3800 and A4-3400, 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 E2-3800
E2-3800
AMD A4-3400
A4-3400

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.


3.2 104 votes

Rate E2-3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 83 votes

Rate A4-3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-3800 or A4-3400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.