A4-3300M vs Atom Z3770

A4-3300M vs Atom Z3770 Performance Spectrum

A4-3300M

2 / 2

1,186

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom Z3770

4 / 4

1,189

+0.3%

Atom E3827

Celeron B820

Celeron P4505

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

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 Z3770 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 Z3770: 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

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,186 vs 1,189).
❌337.5% higher power demand at 35W vs 8W.

Atom Z3770

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 8W instead of 35W, a 27W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom Z3770 better than A4-3300M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3300M is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom Z3770 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom Z3770 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom Z3770 still makes the most sense overall. Atom Z3770 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark.

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

Atom Z3770 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 4 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.

A4-3300M vs Atom Z3770 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 Z3770

The Atom Z3770 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-T (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.46 GHz, with boost up to 2.39 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: UTFCBGA1380. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,189 points. Launch price was $37.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3300M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Atom Z3770 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Atom Z3770 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3300M versus 2.39 GHz on the Atom Z3770 — a 4.5% clock advantage for the A4-3300M (base: 1.9 GHz vs 1.46 GHz). The A4-3300M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Atom Z3770 uses Bay Trail-T (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3300M scores 1,186 against the Atom Z3770's 1,189 — a 0.3% lead for the Atom Z3770. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3300M	Atom Z3770
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+5%	2.39 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz+30%	1.46 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Bay Trail-T (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,186	1,189
Geekbench 6 Single	256	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3300M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Atom Z3770 uses UTFCBGA1380 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3300M versus LPDDR3-1066 on the Atom Z3770 — the A4-3300M supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3300M 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. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3300M) vs 0 (Atom Z3770) — the A4-3300M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A60M,A70M (A4-3300M) and Intel FC-UTBGA592 (Atom Z3770).

Feature	A4-3300M	Atom Z3770
Socket	FS1	UTFCBGA1380
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+25%	LPDDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3300M) / not specified (Atom Z3770). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3300M) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom Z3770) — 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.