Celeron G550T vs A10-9700
Aggregate performance score
A10-9700 outperforms Celeron G550T by a whopping 229% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-9700 and Celeron G550T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1823 | 2725 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.64 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 3.24 | 1.83 |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) | 4 September 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $90 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A10-9700 and Celeron G550T 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 | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 65 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A10-9700 and Celeron G550T 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 |
| Socket | AM4 | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-9700 and Celeron G550T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
A10-9700 and Celeron G550T technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-9700 and Celeron G550T are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-9700 and Celeron G550T. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 17 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | Intel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors |
| iGPU core count | 6 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A10-9700 and Celeron G550T integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A10-9700 and Celeron G550T integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-9700 and Celeron G550T.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | no 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.
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 | 2.27 | 0.69 |
| Recency | 27 July 2017 | 4 September 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
A10-9700 has a 229% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron G550T, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.
The A10-9700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G550T in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-9700 and Celeron G550T, 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.
