A4-3320M vs Athlon II X2 260

A4-3320M vs Athlon II X2 260 Performance Spectrum

A4-3320M

2 / 2

1,241

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon II X2 260

2 / 2

1,248

+0.6%

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 II X2 260 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 II X2 260: 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 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6480G, while Athlon II X2 260 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,241 vs 1,248).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X2 260.

Athlon II X2 260

2010

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike A4-3320M.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $60 MSRP, while A4-3320M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3320M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II X2 260 better than A4-3320M?

Yes. Athlon II X2 260 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon II X2 260 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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 II X2 260 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon II X2 260 is the better buy right now. Athlon II X2 260 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $60 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (20.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A4-3320M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-3320M vs Athlon II X2 260 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 II X2 260

The Athlon II X2 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 11 May 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,248 points. Launch price was $48.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3320M and Athlon II X2 260 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A4-3320M versus 3.2 GHz on the Athlon II X2 260 — a 20.7% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 260 (base: 2 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The A4-3320M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon II X2 260 uses Regor (2009−2013) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3320M scores 1,241 against the Athlon II X2 260's 1,248 — a 0.6% lead for the Athlon II X2 260. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3320M	Athlon II X2 260
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz	3.2 GHz+23%
Base Clock	2 GHz	3.2 GHz+60%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Regor (2009−2013)
PassMark	1,241	1,248
Geekbench 6 Single	251	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3320M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon II X2 260 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3320M) vs 0 (Athlon II X2 260) — the A4-3320M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-3320M	Athlon II X2 260
Socket	FS1	AM3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3320M) vs true (Athlon II X2 260). The A4-3320M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6480G), while the Athlon II X2 260 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3320M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3320M rivals Pentium B970; Athlon II X2 260 rivals Pentium E6700.