A4-3420 vs Atom E3845

A4-3420 vs Atom E3845 Performance Spectrum

A4-3420

2 / 2

1,067

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom E3845

4 / 4

1,071

+0.4%

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.

A4-3420 vs Atom E3845 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.

A4-3420 vs Atom E3845: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3420

2011

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock), unlike Atom E3845.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,067 vs 1,071).
❌Launch MSRP is still $65 MSRP, while Atom E3845 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌550% higher power demand at 65W vs 10W.

Atom E3845

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 10W instead of 65W, a 55W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3420.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3845 better than A4-3420?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3420 is ahead with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3845 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3845 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom E3845 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom E3845 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $65 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark. A4-3420 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (16.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on FM1.

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

Atom E3845 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-3420 vs Atom E3845 Technical Specifications

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

A4-3420

The A4-3420 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 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 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: 1,067 points. Launch price was $50.

Atom E3845

The Atom E3845 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 October 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.91 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,071 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3420 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Atom E3845 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Atom E3845 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the A4-3420 versus 1.91 GHz on the Atom E3845 — a 37.8% clock advantage for the A4-3420. The A4-3420 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Atom E3845 uses Bay Trail-I (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3420 scores 1,067 against the Atom E3845's 1,071 — a 0.4% lead for the Atom E3845. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3420	Atom E3845
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+47%	1.91 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	512 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Bay Trail-I (2013)
PassMark	1,067	1,071
Geekbench 6 Single	300	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	500	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3420 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Atom E3845 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-3420 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Atom E3845 — the A4-3420 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3420 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3420) vs 4 (Atom E3845) — the A4-3420 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75,A85X (A4-3420) and Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3845).

Feature	A4-3420	Atom E3845
Socket	FM1	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+20%	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3420) / not specified (Atom E3845). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6410D (A4-3420) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3845) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3420 targets Entry Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3420 rivals Pentium G630.