A6-6400K vs Core i3-380UM

A6-6400K vs Core i3-380UM Performance Spectrum

A6-6400K

2 / 2

1,511

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-380UM

2 / 4

1,502

0.0%

Pentium U5600

Celeron 1019Y

Core i3-370M

Pentium Dual Core T4500

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.

A6-6400K vs Core i3-380UM 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.

A6-6400K vs Core i3-380UM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-6400K

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Core i3-380UM.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core i3-380UM

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A6-6400K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,502 vs 1,511).
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-6400K.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-6400K better than Core i3-380UM?

Yes. A6-6400K is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.1% average FPS lead across 50 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?

If gaming is the priority, A6-6400K is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.1% 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, A6-6400K 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?

A6-6400K still makes the most sense overall. A6-6400K comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A6-6400K makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-6400K vs Core i3-380UM Technical Specifications

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

A6-6400K

The A6-6400K 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 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,511 points. Launch price was $70.

Core i3-380UM

The Core i3-380UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 October 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.33 GHz, with boost up to 0.03 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,502 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-6400K packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-380UM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the A6-6400K versus 0.03 GHz on the Core i3-380UM — a 197.1% clock advantage for the A6-6400K (base: 3.9 GHz vs 1.33 GHz). The A6-6400K uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i3-380UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-6400K scores 1,511 against the Core i3-380UM's 1,502 — a 0.6% lead for the A6-6400K. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-6400K vs 3 MB on the Core i3-380UM.

Feature	A6-6400K	Core i3-380UM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	4.1 GHz+13567%	0.03 GHz
Base Clock	3.9 GHz+193%	1.33 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB
L2 Cache	1024 kB+100%	512 kB
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,511	1,502
Geekbench 6 Single	—	199
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	451

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-6400K uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-380UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1866 on the A6-6400K versus DDR3-800 on the Core i3-380UM — the A6-6400K supports 133.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-6400K 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. Chipset compatibility: FM2 (A6-6400K) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Core i3-380UM).

Feature	A6-6400K	Core i3-380UM
Socket	FM2	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1866+133%	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the A6-6400K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: true (A6-6400K) vs No (Core i3-380UM). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8470D (A6-6400K) and Intel HD Graphics (Core i3-380UM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-380UM targets Budget. Direct competitor: A6-6400K rivals Pentium G3258; Core i3-380UM rivals Athlon Silver 3050U.