Celeron 827E vs A8-7680
Aggregate performance score
A8-7680 outperforms Celeron 827E by a whopping 870% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-7680 and Celeron 827E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1826 | 3171 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.78 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A8 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 4.69 | 1.28 |
| Architecture codename | Excavator (2017−2018) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 26 October 2018 (6 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $56 | $89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A8-7680 and Celeron 827E 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 38 | 14 |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 1.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 504 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on A8-7680 and Celeron 827E 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FM2+ | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-7680 and Celeron 827E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-7680 and Celeron 827E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-7680 and Celeron 827E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 14.936 GB/s | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon R7 Series | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
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 | 2.23 | 0.23 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 17 Watt |
A8-7680 has a 869.6% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 827E, on the other hand, has 164.7% lower power consumption.
The A8-7680 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 827E in performance tests.
Note that A8-7680 is a desktop processor while Celeron 827E is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-7680 and Celeron 827E, 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.
