A4-3320M vs Athlon 64 TF-20

A4-3320M vs Athlon 64 TF-20 Performance Spectrum

A4-3320M

2 / 2

1,241

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon 64 TF-20

1 / 1

1,245

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

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.

A4-3320M vs Athlon 64 TF-20 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.

A4-3320M vs Athlon 64 TF-20: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3320M

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6480G, while Athlon 64 TF-20 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,241 vs 1,245).

Athlon 64 TF-20

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while A4-3320M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3320M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3320M better than Athlon 64 TF-20?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3320M is ahead with a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 TF-20 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, Athlon 64 TF-20 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

A4-3320M is still the much better call for a fresh build. A4-3320M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $50 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 TF-20 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (24.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on S1g1.

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

A4-3320M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-3320M vs Athlon 64 TF-20 Technical Specifications

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

A4-3320M

The A4-3320M 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 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 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: 1,241 points. Launch price was $50.

Athlon 64 TF-20

The Athlon 64 TF-20 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Sherman (2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,245 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3320M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon 64 TF-20 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the A4-3320M has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A4-3320M versus 1.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 TF-20 — a 47.6% clock advantage for the A4-3320M. The A4-3320M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon 64 TF-20 uses Sherman (2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3320M scores 1,241 against the Athlon 64 TF-20's 1,245 — a 0.3% lead for the Athlon 64 TF-20.

Feature	A4-3320M	Athlon 64 TF-20
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+63%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+100%	512 kB
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Sherman (2009)
PassMark	1,241	1,245
Geekbench 6 Single	251	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3320M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon 64 TF-20 uses S1g1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3320M versus DDR2-667 on the Athlon 64 TF-20 — the A4-3320M supports 99.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3320M 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.

Feature	A4-3320M	Athlon 64 TF-20
Socket	FS1	S1g1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+100%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3320M) vs false (Athlon 64 TF-20). The A4-3320M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6480G), while the Athlon 64 TF-20 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3320M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3320M rivals Pentium B970.