A4-5300B vs Core 2 Solo SU3300

A4-5300B vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 Performance Spectrum

A4-5300B

2 / 2

1,246

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Solo SU3300

1 / 1

1,247

+0.1%

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.

A4-5300B vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 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.

A4-5300B vs Core 2 Solo SU3300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-5300B

2012

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 7480D, while Core 2 Solo SU3300 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core 2 Solo SU3300.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,246 vs 1,247).
❌2066.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

2008

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 3W instead of 65W, a 62W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $262 MSRP, while A4-5300B mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-5300B can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-5300B.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Solo SU3300 better than A4-5300B?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-5300B is ahead with a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Solo SU3300 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Solo SU3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core 2 Solo SU3300 is the better buy right now. Core 2 Solo SU3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $262 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that A4-5300B is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A4-5300B makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-5300B vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 Technical Specifications

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

A4-5300B

The A4-5300B is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,246 points. Launch price was $50.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

The Core 2 Solo SU3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,247 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-5300B packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the A4-5300B has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 3.6 GHz on the A4-5300B versus 1.2 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — a 100% clock advantage for the A4-5300B. The A4-5300B uses the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A4-5300B scores 1,246 against the Core 2 Solo SU3300's 1,247 — a 0.1% lead for the Core 2 Solo SU3300.

Feature	A4-5300B	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	3.6 GHz+200%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	3 MB+200%
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Trinity (2012−2013)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,246	1,247
Geekbench 6 Single	428	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-5300B uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-5300B versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — the A4-5300B supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-5300B supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (A4-5300B) vs 1 (Core 2 Solo SU3300). PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-5300B) vs 0 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) — the A4-5300B offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-5300B	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Socket	FM2	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+100%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+700%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-5300B) vs VT-x (Core 2 Solo SU3300). The A4-5300B includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 7480D), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-5300B targets Business Desktop, Core 2 Solo SU3300 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: A4-5300B rivals Pentium G2020.