A4-3400 vs Atom Z2560

A4-3400 vs Atom Z2560 Performance Spectrum

A4-3400

2 / 2

1,066

+0.9%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom Z2560

2 / 4

1,056

0.0%

Core Duo T2050

Celeron N3000

Celeron J1800

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

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 Atom Z2560 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 Atom Z2560: 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

✅Better for gaming: +4.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Atom Z2560.

Trade-offs

❌2066.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 3W.

Atom Z2560

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 65W, a 62W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A4-3400 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,056 vs 1,066).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3400.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3400 better than Atom Z2560?

Yes. A4-3400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.9% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A4-3400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.8% 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, A4-3400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-3400 still makes the most sense overall. A4-3400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Atom Z2560 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-3400 vs Atom Z2560 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.

Atom Z2560

The Atom Z2560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 February 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Clovertrail (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FC-MB4760. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,056 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Atom Z2560's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the A4-3400 versus 1.6 GHz on the Atom Z2560 — a 51.2% clock advantage for the A4-3400. The A4-3400 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Atom Z2560 uses Clovertrail (2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3400 scores 1,066 against the Atom Z2560's 1,056 — a 0.9% lead for the A4-3400. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3400	Atom Z2560
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+69%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	512K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Clovertrail (2013)
PassMark	1,066	1,056
Geekbench 6 Single	349	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3400 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Atom Z2560 uses FC-MB4760 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-3400 versus LPDDR2-1066 on the Atom Z2560 — the A4-3400 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3400 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3400) vs 0 (Atom Z2560) — the A4-3400 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A4-3400) and Intel BGA1264 (Atom Z2560).

Feature	A4-3400	Atom Z2560
Socket	FM1	FC-MB4760
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+50%	LPDDR2-1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+700%	2 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3400) / not specified (Atom Z2560). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6410D (A4-3400) and PowerVR SGX544MP2 (Atom Z2560) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620.