A6-6400K vs Core i7-640LM

A6-6400K vs Core i7-640LM Performance Spectrum

A6-6400K

2 / 2

1,511

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i7-640LM

2 / 4

1,529

+1.2%

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.

A6-6400K vs Core i7-640LM 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 i7-640LM: 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: +3.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Core i7-640LM.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,511 vs 1,529).
❌160% higher power demand at 65W vs 25W.

Core i7-640LM

2010

Why buy it

✅+1.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 25W instead of 65W, a 40W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A6-6400K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-6400K.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-640LM better than A6-6400K?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-6400K is ahead with a 3.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-640LM pulls ahead with 1.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-640LM is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i7-640LM still makes the most sense overall. Core i7-640LM comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.2% better PassMark.

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). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-6400K vs Core i7-640LM 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 i7-640LM

The Core i7-640LM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.93 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,529 points. Launch price was $332.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-6400K packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-640LM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the A6-6400K versus 2.93 GHz on the Core i7-640LM — a 33.3% clock advantage for the A6-6400K (base: 3.9 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The A6-6400K uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i7-640LM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-6400K scores 1,511 against the Core i7-640LM's 1,529 — a 1.2% lead for the Core i7-640LM. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-6400K vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640LM.

Feature	A6-6400K	Core i7-640LM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	4.1 GHz+40%	2.93 GHz
Base Clock	3.9 GHz+83%	2.13 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1024 kB+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,511	1,529+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-6400K uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-640LM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1866 on the A6-6400K versus 1066 on the Core i7-640LM — the A6-6400K supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-6400K supports up to 32 of RAM compared to 8 — 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,QS57 (Core i7-640LM).

Feature	A6-6400K	Core i7-640LM
Socket	FM2	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1866+75%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	32+300%	8
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. Both support true virtualization. Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8470D (A6-6400K) and Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake) (Core i7-640LM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: A6-6400K rivals Pentium G3258; Core i7-640LM rivals Core 2 Duo SL9400.