Celeron 1000M vs A8-6410

VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-6410
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.12
+67.2%
Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.67

A8-6410 outperforms Celeron 1000M by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23962731
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency7.071.81
Architecture codenameBeema (2014)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date1 June 2014 (10 years ago)20 January 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M 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 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB256K (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die sizeno data118 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data105 °C
Number of transistors930 Million1,400 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M 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
SocketFT3bFCPGA988
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VTIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-
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

A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M 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 A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3L-1866DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channels12
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 GraphicsIntel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M.

PCIe version2.02.0
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.

A8-6410 1.12
+67.2%
Celeron 1000M 0.67

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.

A8-6410 1772
+65.8%
Celeron 1000M 1069

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.

A8-6410 223
Celeron 1000M 296
+32.7%

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.

A8-6410 586
+15.1%
Celeron 1000M 509

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.

A8-6410 1887
Celeron 1000M 2480
+31.5%

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.

A8-6410 5872
+23.4%
Celeron 1000M 4757

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.

A8-6410 2866
+49%
Celeron 1000M 1923

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.

A8-6410 24.3
+71.3%
Celeron 1000M 41.63

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.

A8-6410 2
+39.7%
Celeron 1000M 1

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.

A8-6410 0.6
Celeron 1000M 0.74
+23.3%

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.  

A8-6410 12
+39%
Celeron 1000M 8

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.  

A8-6410 54
+15.2%
Celeron 1000M 47

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.12 0.67
Recency 1 June 2014 20 January 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

A8-6410 has a 67.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

Celeron 1000M, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process.

The A8-6410 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-6410 and Celeron 1000M, 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 A8-6410
A8-6410
Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M

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.


3.6 323 votes

Rate A8-6410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 166 votes

Rate Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-6410 or Celeron 1000M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.