A4-1200 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300

A4-1200 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 Performance Spectrum

A4-1200

2 / 2

1,248

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Solo SU3300

1 / 1

1,247

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.

A4-1200 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 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.

A4-1200 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-1200

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8180, while Core 2 Solo SU3300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌33.3% higher power demand at 4W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 4W, a 1W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,247 vs 1,248).
❌Launch MSRP is still $262 MSRP, while A4-1200 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-1200 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Solo SU3300 better than A4-1200?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Solo SU3300 is ahead with a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4-1200 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4-1200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Core 2 Solo SU3300 is the better buy right now. Core 2 Solo SU3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $262 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that A4-1200 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.1% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A4-1200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-1200 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 Technical Specifications

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

A4-1200

The A4-1200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Temash (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,248 points. Launch price was $50.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

The Core 2 Solo SU3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,247 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-1200 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the A4-1200 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the A4-1200 versus 1.2 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — a 18.2% clock advantage for the Core 2 Solo SU3300. The A4-1200 uses the Temash (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A4-1200 scores 1,248 against the Core 2 Solo SU3300's 1,247 — a 0.1% lead for the A4-1200.

Feature	A4-1200	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1 GHz	1.2 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+16967%	3 MB
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Temash (2013)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,248	1,247
Geekbench 6 Single	70	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-1200 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the A4-1200 versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — the A4-1200 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-1200 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-1200) vs 0 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) — the A4-1200 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-1200	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Socket	FT3	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066+33%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-1200) vs VT-x (Core 2 Solo SU3300). The A4-1200 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8180), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-1200 targets Tablet, Core 2 Solo SU3300 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: A4-1200 rivals Atom Z2760.