Core i3-4000M vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66

Core i3-4000M vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66 Performance Spectrum

Core i3-4000M

2 / 4

1,797

0.0%

1,808

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Core i3-4000M vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66 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.

Core i3-4000M vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-4000M

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,797 vs 1,808).
❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Turion 64 X2 TL-66

2007

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 X2 TL-66 better than Core i3-4000M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i3-4000M is ahead with a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 X2 TL-66 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 X2 TL-66 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?

Turion 64 X2 TL-66 still makes the most sense overall. Turion 64 X2 TL-66 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark.

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

Core i3-4000M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2007). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i3-4000M vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66 Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-4000M

The Core i3-4000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,797 points. Launch price was $225.

Turion 64 X2 TL-66

The Turion 64 X2 TL-66 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Brisbane (2007−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.3 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,808 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-4000M packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Turion 64 X2 TL-66's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Core i3-4000M versus 2.3 GHz on the Turion 64 X2 TL-66 — a 4.3% clock advantage for the Core i3-4000M. The Core i3-4000M uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-66 uses Brisbane (2007−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-4000M scores 1,797 against the Turion 64 X2 TL-66's 1,808 — a 0.6% lead for the Turion 64 X2 TL-66.

Feature	Core i3-4000M	Turion 64 X2 TL-66
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+4%	2.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	—
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Brisbane (2007−2008)
PassMark	1,797	1,808