A4-3300M vs Atom x5-E3930

A4-3300M vs Atom x5-E3930 Performance Spectrum

A4-3300M

2 / 2

1,186

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom x5-E3930

2 / 2

1,185

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.

A4-3300M vs Atom x5-E3930 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.

A4-3300M vs Atom x5-E3930: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3300M

2011

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌438.5% higher power demand at 35W vs 6.5W.

Atom x5-E3930

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 7W instead of 35W, a 29W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,185 vs 1,186).

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3300M better than Atom x5-E3930?

Yes. A4-3300M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 0.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A4-3300M has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 38.9% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4-3300M 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?

A4-3300M still makes the most sense overall. A4-3300M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% higher PassMark.

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

Atom x5-E3930 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-3300M vs Atom x5-E3930 Technical Specifications

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

A4-3300M

The A4-3300M 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 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,186 points. Launch price was $50.

Atom x5-E3930

The Atom x5-E3930 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 7 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,185 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3300M and Atom x5-E3930 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3300M versus 1.8 GHz on the Atom x5-E3930 — a 32.6% clock advantage for the A4-3300M (base: 1.9 GHz vs 1.3 GHz). The A4-3300M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Atom x5-E3930 uses Apollo Lake (2014−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3300M scores 1,186 against the Atom x5-E3930's 1,185 — a 0.1% lead for the A4-3300M. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3300M	Atom x5-E3930
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+39%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz+46%	1.3 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (total)+100%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)
PassMark	1,186	1,185
Geekbench 6 Single	256	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3300M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Atom x5-E3930 uses FCBGA1296 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3300M versus DDR3L-1866 on the Atom x5-E3930 — the Atom x5-E3930 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3300M supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3300M) vs 4 (Atom x5-E3930) — the A4-3300M offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A60M,A70M (A4-3300M) and Intel FCBGA1296 (Atom x5-E3930).

Feature	A4-3300M	Atom x5-E3930
Socket	FS1	FCBGA1296
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3L-1866+40%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3300M) / not specified (Atom x5-E3930). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3300M) and Intel HD Graphics 500 (Atom x5-E3930) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3300M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3300M rivals Pentium B940.