Celeron N3150 vs A10-6700

VS

Aggregate performance score

A10-6700
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.95
+160%
Celeron N3150
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
0.75

A10-6700 outperforms Celeron N3150 by a whopping 160% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A10-6700 and Celeron N3150 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19532668
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency2.8411.82
Architecture codenameRichland (2013−2014)Braswell (2015−2016)
Release date1 June 2013 (11 years ago)1 April 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

A10-6700 and Celeron N3150 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed3.7 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz2.08 GHz
Bus typeno dataIDI
L1 cache192 KBno data
L2 cache4096 KB2 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size246 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature71 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A10-6700 and Celeron N3150 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFM2FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-6700 and Celeron N3150. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMAFMA4-
AVXAVX-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

A10-6700 and Celeron N3150 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-6700 and Celeron N3150 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
VT-ino data-
EPTno data+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-6700 and Celeron N3150. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1866DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channels22

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 8670DIntel HD Graphics for Intel Celeron Processor N3000 Series
จำนวนพาธไลน์384no data
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data640 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A10-6700 and Celeron N3150 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort++
HDMI++

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A10-6700 and Celeron N3150 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 11+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-6700 and Celeron N3150.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanesno data4
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno data+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A10-6700 1.95
+160%
Celeron N3150 0.75

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

A10-6700 3105
+161%
Celeron N3150 1189

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

A10-6700 451
+175%
Celeron N3150 164

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

A10-6700 1099
+120%
Celeron N3150 500

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.95 0.75
Integrated graphics card 1.39 0.77
Recency 1 June 2013 1 April 2015
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 6 Watt

A10-6700 has a 160% higher aggregate performance score, and 80.5% faster integrated GPU.

Celeron N3150, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 983.3% lower power consumption.

The A10-6700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N3150 in performance tests.

Note that A10-6700 is a desktop processor while Celeron N3150 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A10-6700 and Celeron N3150, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A10-6700
A10-6700
Intel Celeron N3150
Celeron N3150

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 257 votes

Rate A10-6700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 61 vote

Rate Celeron N3150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A10-6700 or Celeron N3150, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.