Celeron B710 vs A6-3500

VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-3500
2011
3 cores / 3 threads, 65 Watt
0.89
+1171%
Celeron B710
2011
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.07

A6-3500 outperforms Celeron B710 by a whopping 1171% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-3500 and Celeron B710 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25533404
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.300.19
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date17 August 2011 (13 years ago)19 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$70

Detailed specifications

A6-3500 and Celeron B710 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 cores3 (Tri-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads31
Base clock speed2.1 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data16
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB1.5 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size228 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A6-3500 and Celeron B710 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFM1PGA988,PPGA988
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-3500 and Celeron B710. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

A6-3500 and Celeron B710 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-3500 and Celeron B710 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-3500 and Celeron B710. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardRadeon HD 6530DIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-3500 and Celeron B710 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-3500 and Celeron B710.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

A6-3500 0.89
+1171%
Celeron B710 0.07

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.

A6-3500 1420
+1240%
Celeron B710 106

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.89 0.07
Recency 17 August 2011 19 June 2011
Physical cores 3 1
Threads 3 1
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

A6-3500 has a 1171.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 month, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

Celeron B710, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.

The A6-3500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B710 in performance tests.

Note that A6-3500 is a desktop processor while Celeron B710 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-3500 and Celeron B710, 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 A6-3500
A6-3500
Intel Celeron B710
Celeron B710

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.


3.4 128 votes

Rate A6-3500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 100 votes

Rate Celeron B710 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-3500 or Celeron B710, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.