A4-3305M vs Athlon 64 X2 6000+

A4-3305M vs Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Performance Spectrum

A4-3305M

2 / 2

1,812

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon 64 X2 6000+

2 / 2

1,825

+0.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

A4-3305M vs Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 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.

A4-3305M vs Athlon 64 X2 6000+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3305M

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 125W, a 90W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6480G, while Athlon 64 X2 6000+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,812 vs 1,825).

Athlon 64 X2 6000+

2007

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $450 MSRP, while A4-3305M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌257.1% higher power demand at 125W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3305M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 X2 6000+ better than A4-3305M?

Yes. Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.6% 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, Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is the better buy right now. Athlon 64 X2 6000+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at $450 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A4-3305M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2007). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-3305M vs Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Technical Specifications

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

A4-3305M

The A4-3305M 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: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,812 points. Launch price was $50.

Athlon 64 X2 6000+

The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,825 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3305M and Athlon 64 X2 6000+ share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3305M versus 3.1 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ — a 21.4% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 X2 6000+. The A4-3305M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ uses Windsor (2006−2007) (90 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3305M scores 1,812 against the Athlon 64 X2 6000+'s 1,825 — a 0.7% lead for the Athlon 64 X2 6000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3305M	Athlon 64 X2 6000+
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz	3.1 GHz+24%
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512K
Process	32 nm-64%	90 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Windsor (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,812	1,825
Geekbench 6 Single	276	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3305M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ uses AM2 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3305M versus DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ — the A4-3305M supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3305M) vs 0 (Athlon 64 X2 6000+) — the A4-3305M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-3305M	Athlon 64 X2 6000+
Socket	FS1	AM2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+67%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3305M) / not specified (Athlon 64 X2 6000+). The A4-3305M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6480G), while the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3305M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3305M rivals Pentium B950.