A4-6210 vs Core i3-380UM

A4-6210 vs Core i3-380UM Performance Spectrum

A4-6210

4 / 4

1,499

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-380UM

2 / 4

1,502

+0.2%

Pentium U5600

Celeron 1019Y

Core i3-370M

Pentium Dual Core T4500

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.

A4-6210 vs Core i3-380UM 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.

A4-6210 vs Core i3-380UM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-6210

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 512W, a 497W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (198 vs 199).
❌Lower PassMark (1,499 vs 1,502).

Core i3-380UM

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌3313.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-380UM better than A4-6210?

Yes. Core i3-380UM is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.2% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i3-380UM is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% 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, Core i3-380UM is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-380UM still makes the most sense overall. Core i3-380UM comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A4-6210 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-6210 vs Core i3-380UM Technical Specifications

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

A4-6210

The A4-6210 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Beema (2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1599. Passmark benchmark score: 1,499 points. Launch price was $50.

Core i3-380UM

The Core i3-380UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 October 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.33 GHz, with boost up to 0.03 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,502 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-6210 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-380UM offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the A4-6210 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the A4-6210 versus 0.03 GHz on the Core i3-380UM — a 193.4% clock advantage for the A4-6210. The A4-6210 uses the Beema (2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i3-380UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A4-6210 scores 1,499 against the Core i3-380UM's 1,502 — a 0.2% lead for the Core i3-380UM. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 198 vs 199, a 0.5% lead for the Core i3-380UM that directly translates to higher frame rates.

Feature	A4-6210	Core i3-380UM
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz+5900%	0.03 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.33 GHz
L3 Cache	—	3 MB
L2 Cache	2048 kB+300%	512 kB
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Beema (2014)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,499	1,502
Geekbench 6 Single	198	199
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	451

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-6210 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-380UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the A4-6210 versus DDR3-800 on the Core i3-380UM — the A4-6210 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-6210 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4-6210) vs 2 (Core i3-380UM). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-6210) vs 16 (Core i3-380UM) — the Core i3-380UM offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-6210	Core i3-380UM
Socket	FT3	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+100%	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-6210) vs No (Core i3-380UM). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R3 (A4-6210) and Intel HD Graphics (Core i3-380UM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-6210 targets Entry Laptop, Core i3-380UM targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-6210 rivals Pentium N3700; Core i3-380UM rivals Athlon Silver 3050U.