OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD A4-3310MX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£20PassMark multi-core score:789N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.5 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD A4-3310MX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A4-3310MX
4.9/10

Overall score

Score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

40%

3.5

Technical score

25%

3.5

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 98% of processors
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

4.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 91%
3.5

Technical score

Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

3.3

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 96%
3.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

3.5

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 97%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-a4-3310mx
  • amd-a4-3310mx
  • amd-a4-3310mx
  • amd-a4-3310mx
amd-a4-3310mx
amd-a4-3310mx
amd-a4-3310mx
amd-a4-3310mx
Where to buy
    N/A~ £20
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A4-3310MX

Technical score
Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

3.3

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

3.5
Reviews score
3.5
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components:

70%

4.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.4
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, AMD-V instruction sets, which is narrower support than 83.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.5 GHz which is lower than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.1 GHz which is lower than that of 93.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
789
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 789 in PassMark, which is lower than 99.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
32 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 32 nm process node, which is older than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 32 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 32 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,333 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.6% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1333 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 1.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
?
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 6480G
This processor uses the Radeon HD 6480G integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 84.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
444 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 444 MHz which is higher than that of 76.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 58.1% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD A4-3310MX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 12.5x cheaper
    AMD A4-3310MX is cheaper than the average processor (£20 vs £250).
    £20 vs £250
  • 12.5x cheaper
    AMD A4-3310MX is cheaper than the average processor (£20 vs £250).
    £20 vs £250
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 93.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (789 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    789 vs 11,469
  • 91.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (446 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    446 vs 5,209
  • 47.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.5

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.5 vs 6.7
  • 73.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (676 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    676 vs 2,558
  • 43.2% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 70.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (446 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    446 vs 1,535
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Llano vs Kaby Lake).
    Llano vs Kaby Lake
  • 47.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.5

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.5 vs 6.7
  • 13.9% worse value for money
    AMD A4-3310MX has worse value for money than the average processor (6.39 vs 7.3).
    6.39 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 9 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2011 vs 2020).
    June 2011
    2011 vs 2020
  • 93.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (789 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    789 vs 11,469
  • 91.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (446 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    446 vs 5,209
  • 73.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (676 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    676 vs 2,558
  • 43.2% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 70.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (446 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    446 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 7 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (21 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    21 vs 28
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More basic Turbo Core
    This processor has a more basic Turbo Core version than the average processor (1 vs 2).
    Turbo Core
    1 vs 2
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Llano vs Kaby Lake).
    Llano vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.67x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • 28.8% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (228 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    228 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 76.2% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.178 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 58.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,333 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon HD 6480G vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon HD 6480G vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Videos That Don't Belong Elsewhere
≈ estimated
30/03/2019
Hands-on review · performance, keyboard and build tests
Verdict
The AMD A4-3310MX is fine for documents and light browsing, but the processor holds back this dated business laptop.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A4-3310MX

  • Integrated Radeon HD 6480G graphics provide decent performance for basic DirectX 11 tasks compared to older integrated solutions.
  • TurboCore technology allows the dual cores to overclock from 2.1 GHz up to 2.5 GHz for better single-threaded performance.
  • Includes an integrated UVD3 video processor that helps with smooth decoding of HD video formats like H.264 and MPEG4.
  • Integrated dual-channel memory controller supports DDR3(L)-1333 for improved data transfer speeds over single-channel systems.
  • Entry-level pricing makes it a budget-friendly option for simple, everyday office and web-browsing tasks.

What customers don't like about AMD A4-3310MX

  • Overall performance is significantly lower than contemporary competitors, such as Intel's Sandy Bridge Core i3-2310M.
  • A high TDP of 45 Watts results in higher power consumption and heat generation compared to more modern or efficient mobile processors.
  • Limited to only two physical cores and two threads, which leads to poor multitasking and slow performance in multi-threaded applications.
  • Lacks a Level 3 (L3) cache, which can limit the speed of data access and overall system responsiveness.
  • Considered obsolete for modern gaming and demanding software, with benchmarks showing it struggles with even older titles at higher settings.

Verdict

The AMD A4-3310MX is a dual-core mobile processor from the Llano series, built on a 32nm process with a base clock speed of 2.1 GHz and a Turbo Core frequency of up to 2.5 GHz. It features 2 MB of L2 cache, an integrated DDR3-1333 memory controller, and a Radeon HD 6480G integrated graphics unit with 240 shader cores. Key advantages include its capable integrated UVD3 video processor for HD decoding and a DirectX 11-compatible GPU that outperformed many contemporary entry-level discrete chips. However, its main drawbacks are a high 45W TDP that limits its use to larger laptops and the lack of a Level 3 cache, which results in lower per-clock performance compared to Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture.

Compare AMD A4-3310MX with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD A4-3310MX and other processors

No results found