A10-7300 vs Core i3-3120M

A10-7300 vs Core i3-3120M Performance Spectrum

A10-7300

4 / 4

1,736

+1.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-3120M

2 / 4

1,709

0.0%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A10-7300 vs Core i3-3120M FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A10-7300 vs Core i3-3120M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A10-7300

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while Core i3-3120M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i3-3120M

2012

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,709 vs 1,736).
❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.

Quick Answers

So, is A10-7300 better than Core i3-3120M?

Yes. A10-7300 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A10-7300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.4% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A10-7300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

A10-7300 is the better buy right now. A10-7300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $150 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A10-7300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A10-7300 vs Core i3-3120M Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A10-7300

The A10-7300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,736 points. Launch price was $130.

Core i3-3120M

The Core i3-3120M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,709 points. Launch price was $160.

⚡

Processing Power

The A10-7300 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-3120M offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the A10-7300 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the A10-7300 versus 2.5 GHz on the Core i3-3120M — a 24.6% clock advantage for the A10-7300 (base: 1.9 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The A10-7300 uses the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i3-3120M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A10-7300 scores 1,736 against the Core i3-3120M's 1,709 — a 1.6% lead for the A10-7300.

Feature	A10-7300	Core i3-3120M
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz+28%	2.5 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	2.5 GHz+32%
L3 Cache	—	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	4096 kB+1500%	256K (per core)
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Kaveri (2014−2015)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,736+2%	1,709
Geekbench 6 Single	—	440
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	930

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-7300 uses the FP3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-3120M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The Core i3-3120M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: FP3 (A10-7300) and HM76,HM77 (Core i3-3120M).

Feature	A10-7300	Core i3-3120M
Socket	FP3	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	32 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A10-7300) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-3120M). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R6 (A10-7300) and Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Core i3-3120M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10-7300 targets Laptop, Core i3-3120M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A10-7300 rivals Core i3-4010U; Core i3-3120M rivals AMD A8-4500M.