Celeron 857 vs A8-3820

VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-3820
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.37
+281%
Celeron 857
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.36

A8-3820 outperforms Celeron 857 by a whopping 281% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-3820 and Celeron 857 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22403053
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.992.00
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date20 December 2011 (13 years ago)1 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$134

Detailed specifications

A8-3820 and Celeron 857 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.5 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz1.2 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data12
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 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 A8-3820 and Celeron 857 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)
SocketFM1FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3820 and Celeron 857. 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+
My WiFino 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

A8-3820 and Celeron 857 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 A8-3820 and Celeron 857 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3820 and Celeron 857. 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 card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6550DIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A8-3820 and Celeron 857 integrated GPUs.

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

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3820 and Celeron 857.

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.

A8-3820 1.37
+281%
Celeron 857 0.36

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.

A8-3820 2180
+283%
Celeron 857 569

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.37 0.36
Integrated graphics card 1.04 0.77
Recency 20 December 2011 1 July 2011
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 17 Watt

A8-3820 has a 280.6% higher aggregate performance score, 35.1% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 5 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron 857, on the other hand, has 282.4% lower power consumption.

The A8-3820 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 857 in performance tests.

Note that A8-3820 is a desktop processor while Celeron 857 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3820 and Celeron 857, 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 A8-3820
A8-3820
Intel Celeron 857
Celeron 857

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.


3.5 48 votes

Rate A8-3820 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Celeron 857 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-3820 or Celeron 857, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.