A6-5400B vs Core 2 Solo SU3500

A6-5400B vs Core 2 Solo SU3500 Performance Spectrum

A6-5400B

2 / 2

1,465

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Solo SU3500

1 / 1

1,468

+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.

A6-5400B vs Core 2 Solo SU3500 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.

A6-5400B vs Core 2 Solo SU3500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-5400B

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 7540D, while Core 2 Solo SU3500 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core 2 Solo SU3500.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,465 vs 1,468).
❌2066.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3500

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 3W instead of 65W, a 62W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A6-5400B across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $262 MSRP, while A6-5400B mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-5400B can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-5400B.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Solo SU3500 better than A6-5400B?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-5400B is ahead with a 3.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Solo SU3500 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 2 Solo SU3500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core 2 Solo SU3500 is the better buy right now. Core 2 Solo SU3500 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $262 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that A6-5400B is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 3.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A6-5400B makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-5400B vs Core 2 Solo SU3500 Technical Specifications

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

A6-5400B

The A6-5400B 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 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,465 points. Launch price was $70.

Core 2 Solo SU3500

The Core 2 Solo SU3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 5.5 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,468 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-5400B packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the A6-5400B has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the A6-5400B versus 1.4 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3500 — a 92.3% clock advantage for the A6-5400B (base: 3.6 GHz vs 1.3 GHz). The A6-5400B uses the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A6-5400B scores 1,465 against the Core 2 Solo SU3500's 1,468 — a 0.2% lead for the Core 2 Solo SU3500. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-5400B vs 3 MB on the Core 2 Solo SU3500.

Feature	A6-5400B	Core 2 Solo SU3500
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+171%	1.4 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+177%	1.3 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	3 MB+200%
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Trinity (2012−2013)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,465	1,468
Geekbench 6 Single	380	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-5400B uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-5400B	Core 2 Solo SU3500
Socket	FM2	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-5400B) / not specified (Core 2 Solo SU3500). The A6-5400B includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 7540D), while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-5400B targets Business Desktop. Direct competitor: A6-5400B rivals Pentium G2020.