A6-3400M vs Core 2 Duo E6420

A6-3400M vs Core 2 Duo E6420 Performance Spectrum

A6-3400M

4 / 4

1,223

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Duo E6420

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 E6420 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 E6420: 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.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6520G, while Core 2 Duo E6420 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,223 vs 1,235).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core 2 Duo E6420.

Core 2 Duo E6420

2007

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike A6-3400M.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $183 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 A6-3400M better than Core 2 Duo E6420?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-3400M is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Duo E6420 pulls ahead with 1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Duo E6420 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?

A6-3400M is still the much better call for a fresh build. A6-3400M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $183 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Duo E6420 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2007 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (6.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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 E6420 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 E6420

The Core 2 Duo E6420 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 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 E6420 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3400M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the A6-3400M versus 2.13 GHz on the Core 2 Duo E6420 — a 7.7% clock advantage for the A6-3400M (base: 1.4 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The A6-3400M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Duo E6420 uses Conroe (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3400M scores 1,223 against the Core 2 Duo E6420's 1,235 — a 1% lead for the Core 2 Duo E6420. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A6-3400M	Core 2 Duo E6420
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.3 GHz+8%	2.13 GHz
Base Clock	1.4 GHz	2.13 GHz+52%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	4 MB+300%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Conroe (2006−2007)
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 E6420 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A6-3400M versus 1066 on the Core 2 Duo E6420 — the A6-3400M supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core 2 Duo E6420 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. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes.

Feature	A6-3400M	Core 2 Duo E6420
Socket	FS1	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+25%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A6-3400M) vs true (Core 2 Duo E6420). The A6-3400M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6520G), while the Core 2 Duo E6420 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3400M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A6-3400M rivals Core i3-2310M; Core 2 Duo E6420 rivals Athlon 64 X2 5400+.