A4-3300M vs Phenom II X3 P820

VS

Aggregate performance score

Phenom II X3 P820
2010
3 cores / 3 threads, 25 Watt
0.69

A4-3300M outperforms Phenom II X3 P820 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Phenom II X3 P820 and A4-3300M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27352650
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Series3x AMD Phenom IIAMD A-Series
Power efficiency2.522.01
Architecture codenameChamplain (2010−2011)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date12 May 2010 (14 years ago)14 June 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Phenom II X3 P820 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 cores3 (Tri-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads32
Base clock speedno data1.9 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz2.5 GHz
Bus rate3600 MHzno data
L1 cache384 KB128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1.5 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data228 mm2
Number of transistorsno data1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Phenom II X3 P820 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
SocketS1FS1
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X3 P820 and A4-3300M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X3 P820 and A4-3300M are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X3 P820 and A4-3300M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6480G

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.

Phenom II X3 P820 0.69
A4-3300M 0.77
+11.6%

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.

Phenom II X3 P820 1560
A4-3300M 1742
+11.7%

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.

Phenom II X3 P820 4169
+22%
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.

Phenom II X3 P820 2043
+31.3%
A4-3300M 1556

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.

Phenom II X3 P820 2
+37.5%
A4-3300M 1

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.69 0.77
Recency 12 May 2010 14 June 2011
Physical cores 3 2
Threads 3 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 35 Watt

Phenom II X3 P820 has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and 40% lower power consumption.

A4-3300M, on the other hand, has a 11.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

The A4-3300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X3 P820 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X3 P820 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 Phenom II X3 P820
Phenom II X3 P820
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.


4 48 votes

Rate Phenom II X3 P820 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 Phenom II X3 P820 or A4-3300M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.