A6-4400M vs Core i3-3220

A6-4400M vs Core i3-3220 Performance Spectrum

A6-4400M

2 / 2

2,292

+0.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-3220

2 / 4

2,276

0.0%

Celeron 847

Core i3-530

Pentium Dual Core T2390

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.

A6-4400M vs Core i3-3220 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.

A6-4400M vs Core i3-3220: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-4400M

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (313 vs 503).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i3-3220.

Core i3-3220

2012

Why buy it

✅+60.7% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike A6-4400M.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,276 vs 2,292).
❌Launch MSRP is still $117 MSRP, while A6-4400M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-4400M better than Core i3-3220?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i3-3220 is ahead with a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A6-4400M pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-4400M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-4400M is still the much better call for a fresh build. A6-4400M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $117 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% better PassMark. Core i3-3220 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (19.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1155.

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

Core i3-3220 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

A6-4400M vs Core i3-3220 Technical Specifications

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

A6-4400M

The A6-4400M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: unknown. Passmark benchmark score: 2,292 points. Launch price was $70.

Core i3-3220

The Core i3-3220 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,276 points. Launch price was $117.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-4400M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-3220's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the A6-4400M versus 3.3 GHz on the Core i3-3220 — a 3.1% clock advantage for the Core i3-3220 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The A6-4400M uses the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i3-3220 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A6-4400M scores 2,292 against the Core i3-3220's 2,276 — a 0.7% lead for the A6-4400M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 313 vs 503, a 46.6% lead for the Core i3-3220 that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-4400M vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3220.

Feature	A6-4400M	Core i3-3220
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	3.3 GHz+3%
Base Clock	2.7 GHz	3.3 GHz+22%
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Trinity (2012−2013)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	2,292	2,276
Geekbench 6 Single	313	503+61%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-4400M uses the FS1r2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i3-3220 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The Core i3-3220 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	A6-4400M	Core i3-3220
Socket	FS1r2	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR3-1600
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 (A6-4400M) vs VT-x, EPT (Core i3-3220). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 7520G (A6-4400M) and HD Graphics 2500 (Core i3-3220) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-4400M targets Budget Laptop, Core i3-3220 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A6-4400M rivals Core i3-2370M; Core i3-3220 rivals FX-4300.