A6-5345M vs Core 2 Extreme X7900

A6-5345M vs Core 2 Extreme X7900 Performance Spectrum

A6-5345M

2 / 2

1,122

+0.6%

Mobile Athlon 64 3700+

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Extreme X7900

2 / 2

1,115

0.0%

Pentium D 830

Pentium T2370

Pentium T3400

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

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.

A6-5345M vs Core 2 Extreme X7900 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.

A6-5345M vs Core 2 Extreme X7900: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-5345M

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8410G, while Core 2 Extreme X7900 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌325% higher power demand at 17W vs 4W.

Core 2 Extreme X7900

2007

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 17W, a 13W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,115 vs 1,122).
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-5345M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-5345M better than Core 2 Extreme X7900?

Yes. A6-5345M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-5345M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-5345M still makes the most sense overall. A6-5345M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A6-5345M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2007) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-5345M vs Core 2 Extreme X7900 Technical Specifications

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

A6-5345M

The A6-5345M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Richland (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FP2. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,122 points. Launch price was $70.

Core 2 Extreme X7900

The Core 2 Extreme X7900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,115 points. Launch price was $851.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-5345M and Core 2 Extreme X7900 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the A6-5345M versus 2.8 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The A6-5345M uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses Merom (2006−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A6-5345M scores 1,122 against the Core 2 Extreme X7900's 1,115 — a 0.6% lead for the A6-5345M. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A6-5345M	Core 2 Extreme X7900
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.8 GHz+27%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+12700%	4 MB
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Merom (2006−2008)
PassMark	1,122	1,115
Geekbench 6 Single	250	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-5345M uses the FP2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A6-5345M versus DDR2-667 on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 — the A6-5345M supports 99.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-5345M supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A6-5345M) vs 0 (Core 2 Extreme X7900) — the A6-5345M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A6-5345M	Core 2 Extreme X7900
Socket	FP2	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+100%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core 2 Extreme X7900 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A6-5345M) vs VT-x (Core 2 Extreme X7900). The A6-5345M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8410G), while the Core 2 Extreme X7900 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-5345M targets Budget Laptop, Core 2 Extreme X7900 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: A6-5345M rivals Celeron 1005M.