A6-3400M vs Xeon 5140

A6-3400M vs Xeon 5140 Performance Spectrum

A6-3400M

4 / 4

1,223

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon 5140

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 Xeon 5140 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 Xeon 5140: 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 Xeon 5140 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,223 vs 1,235).

Xeon 5140

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌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 Xeon 5140 better than A6-3400M?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 5140 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A6-3400M 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 5140 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 5140 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?

Xeon 5140 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon 5140 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?

A6-3400M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-3400M vs Xeon 5140 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.

Xeon 5140

The Xeon 5140 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 2.33 GHz, with boost up to 2.33 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,235 points. Launch price was $15.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3400M packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon 5140 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3400M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the A6-3400M versus 2.33 GHz on the Xeon 5140 — a 1.3% clock advantage for the Xeon 5140 (base: 1.4 GHz vs 2.33 GHz). The A6-3400M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon 5140 uses Woodcrest (2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3400M scores 1,223 against the Xeon 5140's 1,235 — a 1% lead for the Xeon 5140. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A6-3400M	Xeon 5140
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.3 GHz	2.33 GHz+1%
Base Clock	1.4 GHz	2.33 GHz+66%
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)	Woodcrest (2006)
PassMark	1,223	1,235
Geekbench 6 Single	218	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3400M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon 5140 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-3400M	Xeon 5140
Socket	FS1	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-3400M) / not specified (Xeon 5140). The A6-3400M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6520G), while the Xeon 5140 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3400M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A6-3400M rivals Core i3-2310M.