Celeron G555 vs A4-3300M
Aggregate performance score
Celeron G555 outperforms A4-3300M by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-3300M and Celeron G555 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2670 | 2565 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD A-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.03 | 1.27 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 September 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A4-3300M and Celeron G555 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.9 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A4-3300M and Celeron G555 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 | FS1 | 1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3300M and Celeron G555. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3300M and Celeron G555 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3300M and Celeron G555. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6480G (444 MHz) | Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-3300M and Celeron G555.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
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 | 0.75 | 0.87 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 1 September 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
A4-3300M has 85.7% lower power consumption.
Celeron G555, on the other hand, has a 16% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
The Celeron G555 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3300M in performance tests.
Be aware that A4-3300M is a notebook processor while Celeron G555 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3300M and Celeron G555, 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.
