Celeron N2830 vs A8-3530MX
Aggregate performance score
A8-3530MX outperforms Celeron N2830 by a whopping 197% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2449 | 3055 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.12 | 4.60 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 23 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830 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 | 1.9 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.41 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830 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 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830. 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 | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6620G (444 MHz) | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 750 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.01 | 0.34 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.88 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 23 February 2014 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 7 Watt |
A8-3530MX has a 197.1% higher aggregate performance score, 14.3% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron N2830, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 542.9% lower power consumption.
The A8-3530MX is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2830 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3530MX and Celeron N2830, 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.
