A4-3300 vs Core 2 Extreme X7800

A4-3300 vs Core 2 Extreme X7800 Performance Spectrum

A4-3300

2 / 2

1,143

+0.4%

Mobile Athlon 64 3700+

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Extreme X7800

2 / 2

1,138

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.

A4-3300 vs Core 2 Extreme X7800 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 Core 2 Extreme X7800: 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

✅Better for gaming: +5.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6410D, while Core 2 Extreme X7800 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core 2 Extreme X7800.

Trade-offs

❌1525% higher power demand at 65W vs 4W.

Core 2 Extreme X7800

2007

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 65W, a 61W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A4-3300 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,138 vs 1,143).
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3300 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3300.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3300 better than Core 2 Extreme X7800?

Yes. A4-3300 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% 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, A4-3300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.5% 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, A4-3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-3300 still makes the most sense overall. A4-3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A4-3300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2007) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 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 Core 2 Extreme X7800 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.

Core 2 Extreme X7800

The Core 2 Extreme X7800 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 17 July 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Merom XE (2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,138 points. Launch price was $851.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3300 and Core 2 Extreme X7800 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3300 versus 2.6 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X7800 — a 3.9% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme X7800 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The A4-3300 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Extreme X7800 uses Merom XE (2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3300 scores 1,143 against the Core 2 Extreme X7800's 1,138 — a 0.4% lead for the A4-3300. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3300 vs 4 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Extreme X7800.

Feature	A4-3300	Core 2 Extreme X7800
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz	2.6 GHz+4%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.6 GHz+4%
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	4 MB+700%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Merom XE (2007)
PassMark	1,143	1,138
Geekbench 6 Single	266	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3300 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core 2 Extreme X7800 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-3300 versus DDR2-667 on the Core 2 Extreme X7800 — the A4-3300 supports 139.9% 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. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A4-3300) and Socket P (Core 2 Extreme X7800).

Feature	A4-3300	Core 2 Extreme X7800
Socket	FM1	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+140%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core 2 Extreme X7800 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3300) vs VT-x (Core 2 Extreme X7800). The A4-3300 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6410D), while the Core 2 Extreme X7800 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3300 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3300 rivals Celeron G530.