Celeron G3900TE vs A10-7800
Aggregate performance score
A10-7800 outperforms Celeron G3900TE by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1910 | 2359 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.35 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.94 | 3.16 |
| Architecture codename | Kaveri (2014−2015) | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 31 July 2014 (10 years ago) | 19 October 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $42 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 23 |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 245 mm2 | 98.57 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,411 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE 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 configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FM2+ | LGA-1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| Out-of-band client management | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| HSA | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-2133 | DDR3L-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 34.134 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 510 |
| iGPU core count | 8 | no data |
| Number of pipelines | 512 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.06 | 1.19 |
| Recency | 31 July 2014 | 19 October 2015 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
A10-7800 has a 73.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron G3900TE, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.
The A10-7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G3900TE in performance tests.
Note that A10-7800 is a desktop processor while Celeron G3900TE is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-7800 and Celeron G3900TE, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
