A6-3650 vs Core i7-640M

A6-3650 vs Core i7-640M Performance Spectrum

A6-3650

4 / 4

2,098

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i7-640M

2 / 4

2,092

0.0%

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.

A6-3650 vs Core i7-640M 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.

A6-3650 vs Core i7-640M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-3650

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-640M.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $115 MSRP, while Core i7-640M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌185.7% higher power demand at 100W vs 35W.

Core i7-640M

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 100W, a 65W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,092 vs 2,098).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-3650.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-3650 better than Core i7-640M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-640M is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A6-3650 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-3650 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-3650 is the better buy right now. A6-3650 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $115 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i7-640M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (18.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A6-3650 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-3650 vs Core i7-640M Technical Specifications

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

A6-3650

The A6-3650 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 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 100 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,098 points. Launch price was $70.

Core i7-640M

The Core i7-640M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,092 points. Launch price was $346.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3650 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i7-640M offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the A6-3650 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A6-3650 versus 3.46 GHz on the Core i7-640M — a 28.4% clock advantage for the Core i7-640M (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The A6-3650 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i7-640M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3650 scores 2,098 against the Core i7-640M's 2,092 — a 0.3% lead for the A6-3650. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-3650 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640M.

Feature	A6-3650	Core i7-640M
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz	3.46 GHz+33%
Base Clock	2.6 GHz	2.8 GHz+8%
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	2,098	2,092
Geekbench 6 Single	311	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3650 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i7-640M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1866 on the A6-3650 versus 1066 on the Core i7-640M — the A6-3650 supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-3650 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. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A6-3650) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Core i7-640M).

Feature	A6-3650	Core i7-640M
Socket	FM1	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866+75%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A6-3650) vs true (Core i7-640M). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6530D (A6-3650) and Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake) (Core i7-640M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3650 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A6-3650 rivals Pentium G850; Core i7-640M rivals Core 2 Duo T9600.