A4-3320M vs Xeon 5140

A4-3320M vs Xeon 5140 Performance Spectrum

A4-3320M

2 / 2

1,241

+0.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon 5140

2 / 2

1,235

0.0%

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 Xeon 5140 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 Xeon 5140: 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 Xeon 5140 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Xeon 5140

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,235 vs 1,241).
❌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 A4-3320M better than Xeon 5140?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 5140 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A4-3320M is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A4-3320M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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, A4-3320M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-3320M still makes the most sense overall. A4-3320M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 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 Xeon 5140 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.

Xeon 5140

The Xeon 5140 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Junho 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Woodcrest (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.33 GHz, with boost up to 2.33 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,235 points. Launch price was $15.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3320M and Xeon 5140 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A4-3320M versus 2.33 GHz on the Xeon 5140 — a 11% clock advantage for the A4-3320M (base: 2 GHz vs 2.33 GHz). The A4-3320M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon 5140 uses Woodcrest (2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3320M scores 1,241 against the Xeon 5140's 1,235 — a 0.5% lead for the A4-3320M. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3320M	Xeon 5140
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+12%	2.33 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.33 GHz+17%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	4 MB+300%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Woodcrest (2006)
PassMark	1,241	1,235
Geekbench 6 Single	251	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3320M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon 5140 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A4-3320M	Xeon 5140
Socket	FS1	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3320M) / not specified (Xeon 5140). The A4-3320M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6480G), while the Xeon 5140 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3320M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3320M rivals Pentium B970.