A4-3305M vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300

A4-3305M vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300 Performance Spectrum

A4-3305M

2 / 2

1,812

+0.4%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Extreme QX9300

4 / 4

1,805

0.0%

Pentium 2117U

Pentium N3540

Celeron 1020E

Pentium Dual Core T2370

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 Core 2 Extreme QX9300 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 Core 2 Extreme QX9300: 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

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6480G, while Core 2 Extreme QX9300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌191.7% higher power demand at 35W vs 12W.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 12W instead of 35W, a 23W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,805 vs 1,812).
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3305M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3305M better than Core 2 Extreme QX9300?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is ahead with a 0.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4-3305M 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, A4-3305M 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?

A4-3305M still makes the most sense overall. A4-3305M 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?

A4-3305M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-3305M vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300 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.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300

The Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.53 GHz, with boost up to 2.53 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 12 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,805 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3305M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3305M versus 2.53 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 — a 1.2% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 (base: 1.9 GHz vs 2.53 GHz). The A4-3305M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3305M scores 1,812 against the Core 2 Extreme QX9300's 1,805 — a 0.4% lead for the A4-3305M. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3305M	Core 2 Extreme QX9300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz	2.53 GHz+1%
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	2.53 GHz+33%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+4167%	12 MB
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,812	1,805
Geekbench 6 Single	276	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3305M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A4-3305M	Core 2 Extreme QX9300
Socket	FS1	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3305M) / not specified (Core 2 Extreme QX9300). The A4-3305M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6480G), while the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3305M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3305M rivals Pentium B950.