A6-1450 vs Atom E3845

A6-1450 vs Atom E3845 Performance Spectrum

A6-1450

4 / 4

1,062

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom E3845

4 / 4

1,071

+0.8%

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.

A6-1450 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.

A6-1450 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.

A6-1450

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 8W instead of 10W, a 2W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,062 vs 1,071).

Atom E3845

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌25% higher power demand at 10W vs 8W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3845 better than A6-1450?

Yes. Atom E3845 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom E3845 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Atom E3845 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom E3845 still makes the most sense overall. Atom E3845 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

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

A6-1450 vs Atom E3845 Technical Specifications

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

A6-1450

The A6-1450 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Temash (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,062 points. Launch price was $70.

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

Both the A6-1450 and Atom E3845 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the A6-1450 versus 1.91 GHz on the Atom E3845 — a 30.8% clock advantage for the Atom E3845. The A6-1450 uses the Temash (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Atom E3845 uses Bay Trail-I (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A6-1450 scores 1,062 against the Atom E3845's 1,071 — a 0.8% lead for the Atom E3845. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A6-1450	Atom E3845
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	1.91 GHz+36%
Base Clock	1 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Temash (2013)	Bay Trail-I (2013)
PassMark	1,062	1,071
Geekbench 6 Single	144	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	450	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-1450 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Atom E3845 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the A6-1450 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Atom E3845 — the Atom E3845 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (A6-1450) vs 2 (Atom E3845). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-1450) vs 4 (Atom E3845) — the A6-1450 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (A6-1450) and Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3845).

Feature	A6-1450	Atom E3845
Socket	FT3	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	DDR3L-1333+25%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	8+100%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-1450) / not specified (Atom E3845). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8250 (A6-1450) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3845) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-1450 targets Low Power Tablet/Laptop. Direct competitor: A6-1450 rivals Atom Z3740.

Feature	A6-1450	Atom E3845
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 8250	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	AMD-V	—
Target Use	Low Power Tablet/Laptop	—