Celeron N2930 vs A6-9220

VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-9220
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.84
+27.3%

A6-9220 outperforms Celeron N2930 by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-9220 and Celeron N2930 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25892752
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesBristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency5.118.60
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date1 June 2016 (8 years ago)23 February 2014 (10 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A6-9220 and Celeron N2930 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 speed2.5 GHz1.83 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz2.16 GHz
L1 cache160 KB56K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size124.5 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1200 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A6-9220 and Celeron N2930 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
SocketBGAFCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)10-15 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-9220 and Celeron N2930. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Smart Connectno data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

A6-9220 and Celeron N2930 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-9220 and Celeron N2930 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-9220 and Celeron N2930. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge)Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequencyno data854 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-9220 and Celeron N2930 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-9220 and Celeron N2930.

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.

A6-9220 0.84
+27.3%
Celeron N2930 0.66

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.

A6-9220 1283
+26.5%
Celeron N2930 1014

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.

A6-9220 2432
+115%
Celeron N2930 1132

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.

A6-9220 3941
+1.6%
Celeron N2930 3880

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.

A6-9220 2253
+1.8%
Celeron N2930 2214

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.

A6-9220 27.71
Celeron N2930 27.25
+1.7%

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.

A6-9220 1
Celeron N2930 2
+13.8%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

A6-9220 112
Celeron N2930 129
+15.7%

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.

A6-9220 69
+95.7%
Celeron N2930 35

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.

A6-9220 0.8
+95.1%
Celeron N2930 0.41

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.

A6-9220 1
+308%
Celeron N2930 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.  

A6-9220 9
Celeron N2930 9
+6.9%

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.  

A6-9220 47
Celeron N2930 47
+1%

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.

A6-9220 770
Celeron N2930 1181
+53.4%

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

A6-9220 2921
+8.1%
Celeron N2930 2703

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

A6-9220 1798
+114%
Celeron N2930 839

Geekbench 2

A6-9220 3461
+16.6%
Celeron N2930 2968

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.84 0.66
Recency 1 June 2016 23 February 2014
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 7 Watt

A6-9220 has a 27.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

Celeron N2930, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 42.9% lower power consumption.

The A6-9220 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2930 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-9220 and Celeron N2930, 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 A6-9220
A6-9220
Intel Celeron N2930
Celeron N2930

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.


2.6 402 votes

Rate A6-9220 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 56 votes

Rate Celeron N2930 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-9220 or Celeron N2930, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.