Core i5-3340M vs Pro A12-8800B

Core i5-3340M vs Pro A12-8800B Performance Spectrum

Core i5-3340M

2 / 4

2,692

+0.9%

2,667

0.0%

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 i5-3340M vs Pro A12-8800B 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 i5-3340M vs Pro A12-8800B: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i5-3340M

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.9% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌25500% higher power demand at 512W vs 2W.

Pro A12-8800B

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 512W, a 510W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,667 vs 2,692).
❌Launch MSRP is still $400 MSRP, while Core i5-3340M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-3340M better than Pro A12-8800B?

Yes. Core i5-3340M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.9% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-3340M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i5-3340M is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Core i5-3340M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $400 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. Pro A12-8800B 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 0.4% in the shared gaming data.

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

Pro A12-8800B makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i5-3340M vs Pro A12-8800B Technical Specifications

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

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.

Pro A12-8800B

The Pro A12-8800B is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 3 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Carrizo (2015−2018) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP4. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3/DDR3L-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 2,667 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-3340M packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Pro A12-8800B offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Pro A12-8800B has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i5-3340M versus 3.4 GHz on the Pro A12-8800B — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.7 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i5-3340M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Pro A12-8800B uses Carrizo (2015−2018) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-3340M scores 2,692 against the Pro A12-8800B's 2,667 — a 0.9% lead for the Core i5-3340M.

Feature	Core i5-3340M	Pro A12-8800B
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz+29%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	2048 kB+700%
Process	22 nm-21%	28 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Carrizo (2015−2018)
PassMark	2,692	2,667
Geekbench 6 Single	—	528
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,144

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-3340M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Pro A12-8800B uses FP4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600 on the Core i5-3340M versus DDR3-2133 on the Pro A12-8800B — the Pro A12-8800B supports 60% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Pro A12-8800B 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. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM77,QM77,QS77 (Core i5-3340M) and Socket FP4 (Pro A12-8800B).

Feature	Core i5-3340M	Pro A12-8800B
Socket	PGA988	FP4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600	DDR3-2133+60%
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	64 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x / VT-d / EPT (Core i5-3340M) vs AMD-V (Pro A12-8800B). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Core i5-3340M) and Radeon R7 Graphics (Pro A12-8800B) — 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	Core i5-3340M	Pro A12-8800B
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics 4000	Radeon R7 Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x / VT-d / EPT	AMD-V
Target Use	Professional Laptop	—