Celeron N2920 vs A4-6210

VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-6210
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
0.94
+56.7%
Celeron N2920
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.60

A4-6210 outperforms Celeron N2920 by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-6210 and Celeron N2920 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25062790
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency5.938.11
Architecture codenameBeema (2014)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date29 April 2014 (10 years ago)1 December 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

A4-6210 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speedno data1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz2 GHz
L1 cacheno data56K (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A4-6210 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 configurationno data1
SocketFT3bFCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-6210 and Celeron N2920. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVXno data
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Smart Connectno data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

A4-6210 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 A4-6210 and Celeron N2920 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-6210 and Celeron N2920. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1599DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channels12

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R3 GraphicsIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data844 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A4-6210 and Celeron N2920 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A4-6210 and Celeron N2920 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-6210 and Celeron N2920.

PCIe version2.02.0
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.

A4-6210 0.94
+56.7%
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.

A4-6210 1493
+57.2%
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.

A4-6210 1374
+33.3%
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.

A4-6210 4285
+21.4%
Celeron N2920 3530

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.

A4-6210 2398
+28.9%
Celeron N2920 1861

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.

A4-6210 34.05
Celeron N2920 31.99
+6.4%

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.

A4-6210 2
+22.4%
Celeron N2920 1

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

A4-6210 135
+13.5%
Celeron N2920 119

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

A4-6210 38
+15.4%
Celeron N2920 33

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

A4-6210 0.46
+21.1%
Celeron N2920 0.38

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

A4-6210 1
+376%
Celeron N2920 0.2

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

A4-6210 10
+19.5%
Celeron N2920 8

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

A4-6210 47
+11.1%
Celeron N2920 42

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

A4-6210 992
Celeron N2920 1728
+74.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.94 0.60
Recency 29 April 2014 1 December 2013
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 7 Watt

A4-6210 has a 56.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.

Celeron N2920, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The A4-6210 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-6210 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 A4-6210
A4-6210
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.


3.1 152 votes

Rate A4-6210 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 A4-6210 or Celeron N2920, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.