Celeron T3000 vs A4-3320M
Aggregate performance score
Celeron T3000 outperforms A4-3320M by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-3320M and Celeron T3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2985 | 2967 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.14 | 1.16 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | no data |
| Release date | 20 December 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A4-3320M and Celeron T3000 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 | 2 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1V-1.25V |
Compatibility
Information on A4-3320M and Celeron T3000 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 | no data |
| Socket | FS1 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3320M and Celeron T3000. 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 | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
Security technologies
A4-3320M and Celeron T3000 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 A4-3320M and Celeron T3000 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3320M and Celeron T3000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6480G (444 MHz) | 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 | 0.42 | 0.43 |
| Recency | 20 December 2011 | 1 April 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
A4-3320M has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron T3000, on the other hand, has a 2.4% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A4-3320M and Celeron T3000.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3320M and Celeron T3000, 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.
