Celeron 1020E vs A8-3500M
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 1020E outperforms A8-3500M by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-3500M and Celeron 1020E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2561 | 2558 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.37 | 2.39 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A8-3500M and Celeron 1020E 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 118 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A8-3500M and Celeron 1020E 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FS1 | G2 (988B) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3500M and Celeron 1020E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
A8-3500M and Celeron 1020E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3500M and Celeron 1020E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3500M and Celeron 1020E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6620G (444 MHz) | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (650 - 1000 MHz) |
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 | 0.88 | 0.89 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.88 | 0.63 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 20 January 2013 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
A8-3500M has 39.7% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron 1020E, on the other hand, has a 1.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A8-3500M and Celeron 1020E.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3500M and Celeron 1020E, 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.
