A6-9400 vs Core i5-3340M

A6-9400 vs Core i5-3340M Performance Spectrum

A6-9400

2 / 2

2,717

+0.9%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i5-3340M

2 / 4

2,692

0.0%

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.

A6-9400 vs Core i5-3340M 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.

A6-9400 vs Core i5-3340M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-9400

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Core i5-3340M

2013

Why buy it

✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A6-9400 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,692 vs 2,717).
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-9400 better than Core i5-3340M?

Yes. A6-9400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.9% 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, A6-9400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.8% 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, A6-9400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-9400 still makes the most sense overall. A6-9400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A6-9400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2013) 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.

A6-9400 vs Core i5-3340M Technical Specifications

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

A6-9400

The A6-9400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 2,717 points. Launch price was $70.

Core i5-3340M

The Core i5-3340M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,692 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-9400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i5-3340M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the A6-9400 versus 3.4 GHz on the Core i5-3340M — a 8.5% clock advantage for the A6-9400 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The A6-9400 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i5-3340M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9400 scores 2,717 against the Core i5-3340M's 2,692 — a 0.9% lead for the A6-9400.

Feature	A6-9400	Core i5-3340M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+9%	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz+26%	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	—	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	2,717	2,692

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9400 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i5-3340M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the A6-9400 versus DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600 on the Core i5-3340M — the A6-9400 supports 80% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-9400 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-9400) vs 16 (Core i5-3340M) — the Core i5-3340M offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM4 (A6-9400) and HM77,QM77,QS77 (Core i5-3340M).

Feature	A6-9400	Core i5-3340M
Socket	AM4	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400+80%	DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+100%	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (A6-9400) / VT-x / VT-d / EPT (Core i5-3340M). Both include integrated graphics — AMD Radeon R5 (A6-9400) and Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Core i5-3340M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-3340M targets Professional Laptop. Direct competitor: Core i5-3340M rivals AMD A10-4600M.

Feature	A6-9400	Core i5-3340M
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	AMD Radeon R5	Intel HD Graphics 4000
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x / VT-d / EPT
Target Use	—	Professional Laptop