A4-3300 vs Atom D2700

A4-3300 vs Atom D2700 Performance Spectrum

A4-3300

2 / 2

1,143

0.0%

Mobile Athlon 64 3700+

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom D2700

2 / 4

1,148

+0.4%

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.

A4-3300 vs Atom D2700 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.

A4-3300 vs Atom D2700: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3300

2011

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Atom D2700.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,143 vs 1,148).
❌550% higher power demand at 65W vs 10W.

Atom D2700

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 10W instead of 65W, a 55W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3300.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom D2700 better than A4-3300?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3300 is ahead with a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom D2700 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom D2700 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom D2700 still makes the most sense overall. Atom D2700 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark.

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

Atom D2700 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-3300 vs Atom D2700 Technical Specifications

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

A4-3300

The A4-3300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,143 points. Launch price was $50.

Atom D2700

The Atom D2700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 0.13 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,148 points. Launch price was $52.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3300 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Atom D2700's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3300 versus 0.13 GHz on the Atom D2700 — a 180.2% clock advantage for the A4-3300 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The A4-3300 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Atom D2700 uses Cedarview (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3300 scores 1,143 against the Atom D2700's 1,148 — a 0.4% lead for the Atom D2700. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3300	Atom D2700
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+1823%	0.13 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+17%	2.13 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	512K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Cedarview (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,143	1,148
Geekbench 6 Single	266	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3300 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Atom D2700 uses FCBGA559 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-3300 versus DDR3-1066 on the Atom D2700 — the A4-3300 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3300 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (A4-3300) vs 1 (Atom D2700). PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3300) vs 4 (Atom D2700) — the A4-3300 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A4-3300) and Intel FCBGA559 (Atom D2700).

Feature	A4-3300	Atom D2700
Socket	FM1	FCBGA559
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+50%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3300) / not specified (Atom D2700). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6410D (A4-3300) and Intel GMA 3650 (Atom D2700) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3300 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3300 rivals Celeron G530.