A6-9400 vs Core m3-7Y32

A6-9400 vs Core m3-7Y32 Performance Spectrum

A6-9400

2 / 2

2,717

+0.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core m3-7Y32

2 / 4

2,697

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 m3-7Y32 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 m3-7Y32: 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: +6.0% higher average FPS across 45 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon R5, while Core m3-7Y32 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌1344.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 4.5W.

Core m3-7Y32

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 5W instead of 65W, a 61W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A6-9400 across 45 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,697 vs 2,717).
❌Launch MSRP is still $281 MSRP, while A6-9400 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-9400 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-9400 better than Core m3-7Y32?

Yes. A6-9400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.0% average FPS lead across 45 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.7% 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 6.0% more average FPS across 45 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 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-9400 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. A6-9400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $281 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.0% average FPS lead across 45 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core m3-7Y32 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 6.0% in the shared gaming 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 2017) 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 m3-7Y32 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 m3-7Y32

The Core m3-7Y32 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 21 April 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,697 points. Launch price was $281.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-9400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core m3-7Y32's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the A6-9400 versus 3 GHz on the Core m3-7Y32 — a 20.9% clock advantage for the A6-9400 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The A6-9400 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Core m3-7Y32 uses Kaby Lake (2016−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9400 scores 2,717 against the Core m3-7Y32's 2,697 — a 0.7% lead for the A6-9400.

Feature	A6-9400	Core m3-7Y32
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+23%	3 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz+209%	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	—	4 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)+100%	512 kB
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)
PassMark	2,717	2,697

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9400 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core m3-7Y32 uses FCBGA1515 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.