A4-3320M vs Core 2 Solo SU3300

A4-3320M vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 Performance Spectrum

A4-3320M

2 / 2

1,241

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Solo SU3300

1 / 1

1,247

+0.5%

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 Core 2 Solo SU3300 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 Core 2 Solo SU3300: 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

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6480G, while Core 2 Solo SU3300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,241 vs 1,247).
❌1066.7% higher power demand at 35W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

2008

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 3W instead of 35W, a 32W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $262 MSRP, while A4-3320M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3320M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Solo SU3300 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, Core 2 Solo SU3300 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Solo SU3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core 2 Solo SU3300 is the better buy right now. Core 2 Solo SU3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $262 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that A4-3320M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-3320M vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 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.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

The Core 2 Solo SU3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,247 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3320M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the A4-3320M has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A4-3320M versus 1.2 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — a 73.7% clock advantage for the A4-3320M. The A4-3320M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3320M scores 1,241 against the Core 2 Solo SU3300's 1,247 — a 0.5% lead for the Core 2 Solo SU3300.

Feature	A4-3320M	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+117%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	3 MB+200%
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,241	1,247
Geekbench 6 Single	251	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3320M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3320M versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — the A4-3320M supports 66.6% 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. Memory channels: 2 (A4-3320M) vs 1 (Core 2 Solo SU3300). PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3320M) vs 0 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) — the A4-3320M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-3320M	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Socket	FS1	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+67%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3320M) vs VT-x (Core 2 Solo SU3300). The A4-3320M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6480G), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3320M targets Budget Laptop, Core 2 Solo SU3300 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: A4-3320M rivals Pentium B970.