A4-3400 vs Athlon II X2 250
A4-3400
Athlon II X2 250
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The A4-3400 is positioned at rank 850 and the Athlon II X2 250 is on rank 955, so the A4-3400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar A4-3400
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X2 250
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | A4-3400 | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | A4-3400 | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of A4-3400 and Athlon II X2 250
A4-3400
The A4-3400 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 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,066 points. Launch price was $50.
Athlon II X2 250
The Athlon II X2 250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2 June 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,080 points. Launch price was $39.
Processing Power
Both the A4-3400 and Athlon II X2 250 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the A4-3400 versus 3 GHz on the Athlon II X2 250 — a 10.5% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 250 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 3 GHz). The A4-3400 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon II X2 250 uses Regor (2009−2013) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3400 scores 1,066 against the Athlon II X2 250's 1,080 — a 1.3% lead for the Athlon II X2 250. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | A4-3400 | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.7 GHz | 3 GHz+11% |
| Base Clock | 2.7 GHz | 3 GHz+11% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core) | 2 MB+300% |
| Process | 32 nm-29% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Llano (2011−2012) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,066 | 1,080+1% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 349 | — |
Memory & Platform
The A4-3400 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon II X2 250 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-3400 versus 1333 on the Athlon II X2 250 — the Athlon II X2 250 supports 199.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3400) vs 0 (Athlon II X2 250) — the A4-3400 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A4-3400) and AM2+,AM3 (Athlon II X2 250).
| Feature | A4-3400 | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FM1 | AM3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1600 | 1333+44333% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+104857500% | 16 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3400) vs true (Athlon II X2 250). The A4-3400 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6410D), while the Athlon II X2 250 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620; Athlon II X2 250 rivals Pentium E5700.
| Feature | A4-3400 | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon HD 6410D | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | true |
| Target Use | Budget Desktop | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on A4-3400 and Athlon II X2 250
