A4-3400 vs Athlon II X2 250

A4-3400 vs Athlon II X2 250 Performance Spectrum

A4-3400

2 / 2

1,066

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon II X2 250

2 / 2

1,080

+1.3%

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.

A4-3400 vs Athlon II X2 250 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.

A4-3400 vs Athlon II X2 250: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A4-3400

2011

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6410D, while Athlon II X2 250 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,066 vs 1,080).

Athlon II X2 250

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $87 MSRP, while A4-3400 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3400 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II X2 250 better than A4-3400?

Yes. Athlon II X2 250 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.3% 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 250 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, Athlon II X2 250 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon II X2 250 is the better buy right now. Athlon II X2 250 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $87 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A4-3400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-3400 vs Athlon II X2 250 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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 A4-3400 supports 20% 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+20%	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 (A4-3400) 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.