A4-3320M vs Atom x5-Z8500

A4-3320M vs Atom x5-Z8500 Performance Spectrum

A4-3320M

2 / 2

1,241

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom x5-Z8500

4 / 4

1,242

+0.1%

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 Atom x5-Z8500 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 Atom x5-Z8500: 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

✅700% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 2) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,241 vs 1,242).

Atom x5-Z8500

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Atom x5-Z8500 better than A4-3320M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3320M 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 x5-Z8500 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom x5-Z8500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom x5-Z8500 still makes the most sense overall. Atom x5-Z8500 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark.

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

Atom x5-Z8500 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 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.

A4-3320M vs Atom x5-Z8500 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.

Atom x5-Z8500

The Atom x5-Z8500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Cherry Trail (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.44 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: UTFCBGA1380. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,242 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3320M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Atom x5-Z8500 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Atom x5-Z8500 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A4-3320M versus 2.24 GHz on the Atom x5-Z8500 — a 14.9% clock advantage for the A4-3320M (base: 2 GHz vs 1.44 GHz). The A4-3320M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Atom x5-Z8500 uses Cherry Trail (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3320M scores 1,241 against the Atom x5-Z8500's 1,242 — a 0.1% lead for the Atom x5-Z8500. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3320M	Atom x5-Z8500
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+16%	2.24 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz+39%	1.44 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB+100%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Cherry Trail (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,241	1,242
Geekbench 6 Single	251	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3320M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Atom x5-Z8500 uses UTFCBGA1380 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3320M versus LPDDR3-1600 on the Atom x5-Z8500 — the Atom x5-Z8500 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3320M supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3320M) vs 2 (Atom x5-Z8500) — the A4-3320M offers 14 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-3320M	Atom x5-Z8500
Socket	FS1	UTFCBGA1380
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	LPDDR3-1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+700%	2

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3320M) / not specified (Atom x5-Z8500). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3320M) and Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail) (Atom x5-Z8500) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3320M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3320M rivals Pentium B970.

Feature	A4-3320M	Atom x5-Z8500
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6480G	Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	AMD-V	—
Target Use	Budget Laptop	—