Celeron N5095 vs A8-7680
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N5095 outperforms A8-7680 by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-7680 and Celeron N5095 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1751 | 1660 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 43 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.78 | 0.81 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Jasper Lake |
| Architecture codename | Godaveri (2014−2018) | Jasper Lake (2021) |
| Release date | 26 October 2018 (5 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
A8-7680 has 1848% better value for money than Celeron N5095.
Detailed specifications
A8-7680 and Celeron N5095 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on A8-7680 and Celeron N5095 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 | FM2+ | BGA1338 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-7680 and Celeron N5095. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-7680 and Celeron N5095 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-7680 and Celeron N5095. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon R7 | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-7680 and Celeron N5095.
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
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.
Celeron N5095 outperforms A8-7680 by 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Celeron N5095 outperforms A8-7680 by 15% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.29 | 2.64 |
| Recency | 26 October 2018 | 11 January 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron N5095 has a 15.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Celeron N5095 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-7680 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-7680 and Celeron N5095, 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.
