A6-3400M vs Core i3-3217U

A6-3400M vs Core i3-3217U Performance Spectrum

A6-3400M

4 / 4

1,223

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-3217U

2 / 4

1,226

+0.2%

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 i3-3217U 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 i3-3217U: 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 512W, a 477W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,223 vs 1,226).

Core i3-3217U

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-3217U better than A6-3400M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-3400M is ahead with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-3217U pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-3217U 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 i3-3217U still makes the most sense overall. Core i3-3217U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark.

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

Core i3-3217U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 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.

A6-3400M vs Core i3-3217U 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 i3-3217U

The Core i3-3217U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,226 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3400M packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-3217U offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the A6-3400M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the A6-3400M versus 1.8 GHz on the Core i3-3217U — a 24.4% clock advantage for the A6-3400M (base: 1.4 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The A6-3400M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i3-3217U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3400M scores 1,223 against the Core i3-3217U's 1,226 — a 0.2% lead for the Core i3-3217U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-3400M vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3217U.

Feature	A6-3400M	Core i3-3217U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.3 GHz+28%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	1.4 GHz	1.8 GHz+29%
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,223	1,226
Geekbench 6 Single	218	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3400M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i3-3217U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A6-3400M versus 1600 on the Core i3-3217U — the Core i3-3217U supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i3-3217U supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes.

Feature	A6-3400M	Core i3-3217U
Socket	FS1	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
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 i3-3217U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6520G (A6-3400M) and Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Core i3-3217U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3400M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A6-3400M rivals Core i3-2310M; Core i3-3217U rivals AMD A6-4455M.