A4 PRO-3340B vs Xeon 5160

A4 PRO-3340B vs Xeon 5160 Performance Spectrum

A4 PRO-3340B

4 / 4

1,709

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon 5160

2 / 2

1,715

+0.4%

Celeron T3100

Pentium Dual Core T4200

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 PRO-3340B vs Xeon 5160 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 PRO-3340B vs Xeon 5160: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4 PRO-3340B

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 25W instead of 80W, a 55W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8240, while Xeon 5160 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,709 vs 1,715).

Xeon 5160

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌220% higher power demand at 80W vs 25W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4 PRO-3340B can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 5160 better than A4 PRO-3340B?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 5160 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A4 PRO-3340B is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon 5160 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, Xeon 5160 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Xeon 5160 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon 5160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A4 PRO-3340B makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4 PRO-3340B vs Xeon 5160 Technical Specifications

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

A4 PRO-3340B

The A4 PRO-3340B is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 20 December 2014 (10 years ago). It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3/DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,709 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon 5160

The Xeon 5160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Junho 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Woodcrest (2006) 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: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,715 points. Launch price was $22.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4 PRO-3340B packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon 5160 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A4 PRO-3340B has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the A4 PRO-3340B versus 3 GHz on the Xeon 5160 — a 30.8% clock advantage for the Xeon 5160 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 3 GHz). The A4 PRO-3340B uses the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Xeon 5160 uses Woodcrest (2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A4 PRO-3340B scores 1,709 against the Xeon 5160's 1,715 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon 5160.

Feature	A4 PRO-3340B	Xeon 5160
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	3 GHz+36%
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	3 GHz+36%
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	2048 kB	4 MB+100%
Process	28 nm-57%	65 nm
Architecture	Kabini (2013−2014)	Woodcrest (2006)
PassMark	1,709	1,715
Geekbench 6 Single	200	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4 PRO-3340B uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon 5160 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A4 PRO-3340B	Xeon 5160
Socket	FT3	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4 PRO-3340B) / not specified (Xeon 5160). The A4 PRO-3340B includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8240), while the Xeon 5160 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4 PRO-3340B targets Business Laptop. Direct competitor: A4 PRO-3340B rivals Pentium N3520.