i3-330M vs PRO A10-8770
Aggregate performance score
PRO A10-8770 outperforms Core i3-330M by a whopping 252% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1833 | 2769 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i3 |
| Power efficiency | 3.28 | 1.73 |
| Architecture codename | Carrizo (2015−2018) | Arrandale (2010−2011) |
| Release date | October 2016 (8 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $49 |
Detailed specifications
PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.13 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 0.13 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 1.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 1 × 2.5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 16 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 3 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 81+114 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C for rPGA, 105 °C for BGA |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 382 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM4 | BGA1288,PGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 17.051 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | Intel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel Processors |
| iGPU core count | 6 | no data |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 667 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
| DisplayPort | n/a | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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 | 2.25 | 0.64 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
PRO A10-8770 has a 251.6% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
i3-330M, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.
The PRO A10-8770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-330M in performance tests.
Note that PRO A10-8770 is a desktop processor while Core i3-330M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between PRO A10-8770 and Core i3-330M, 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.
