Celeron N2920 vs A4-3300M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-3300M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.75
+25%
Celeron N2920
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.60

A4-3300M outperforms Celeron N2920 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-3300M and Celeron N2920 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26702809
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency2.038.11
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)1 December 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

A4-3300M and Celeron N2920 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed1.9 GHz1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz2 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)56K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size228 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A4-3300M and Celeron N2920 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
SocketFS1FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3300M and Celeron N2920. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480Gno data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Smart Connectno data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

A4-3300M and Celeron N2920 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3300M and Celeron N2920 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3300M and Celeron N2920. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6480G (444 MHz)Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Graphics max frequencyno data844 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A4-3300M and Celeron N2920 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-3300M and Celeron N2920.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data4
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

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.

A4-3300M 0.75
+25%
Celeron N2920 0.60

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.

A4-3300M 1186
+24.8%
Celeron N2920 950

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

A4-3300M 1742
+69.1%
Celeron N2920 1030

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

A4-3300M 3417
Celeron N2920 3530
+3.3%

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

A4-3300M 1556
Celeron N2920 1861
+19.6%

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

A4-3300M 40.2
Celeron N2920 31.99
+25.7%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

A4-3300M 1
Celeron N2920 1
+27.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.75 0.60
Integrated graphics card 0.66 0.77
Recency 14 June 2011 1 December 2013
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 7 Watt

A4-3300M has a 25% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron N2920, on the other hand, has 16.7% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The A4-3300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3300M and Celeron N2920, 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 A4-3300M
A4-3300M
Intel Celeron N2920
Celeron N2920

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.


3 111 votes

Rate A4-3300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 32 votes

Rate Celeron N2920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-3300M or Celeron N2920, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.