A6-3400M vs Core 2 Duo E4600

A6-3400M vs Core 2 Duo E4600 Performance Spectrum

A6-3400M

4 / 4

1,223

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Duo E4600

2 / 2

1,235

+1.0%

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.

A6-3400M vs Core 2 Duo E4600 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.

A6-3400M vs Core 2 Duo E4600: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-3400M

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6520G, while Core 2 Duo E4600 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,223 vs 1,235).

Core 2 Duo E4600

2007

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $133 MSRP, while A6-3400M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-3400M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Duo E4600 better than A6-3400M?

Yes. Core 2 Duo E4600 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 and 1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core 2 Duo E4600 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, Core 2 Duo E4600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Core 2 Duo E4600 is the better buy right now. Core 2 Duo E4600 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $133 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (9.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A6-3400M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2007). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-3400M vs Core 2 Duo E4600 Technical Specifications

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

A6-3400M

The A6-3400M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,223 points. Launch price was $70.

Core 2 Duo E4600

The Core 2 Duo E4600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,235 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3400M packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core 2 Duo E4600 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3400M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the A6-3400M versus 2.4 GHz on the Core 2 Duo E4600 — a 4.3% clock advantage for the Core 2 Duo E4600 (base: 1.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The A6-3400M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Duo E4600 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3400M scores 1,223 against the Core 2 Duo E4600's 1,235 — a 1% lead for the Core 2 Duo E4600. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A6-3400M	Core 2 Duo E4600
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.3 GHz	2.4 GHz+4%
Base Clock	1.4 GHz	2.4 GHz+71%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB+100%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Allendale (2006−2009)
PassMark	1,223	1,235
Geekbench 6 Single	218	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3400M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core 2 Duo E4600 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A6-3400M versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Duo E4600 — the A6-3400M supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core 2 Duo E4600 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A6-3400M) vs 0 (Core 2 Duo E4600) — the A6-3400M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A6-3400M	Core 2 Duo E4600
Socket	FS1	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+67%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-3400M) / not specified (Core 2 Duo E4600). The A6-3400M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6520G), while the Core 2 Duo E4600 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3400M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A6-3400M rivals Core i3-2310M.