A4-3300 vs Celeron 1000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.69
+15%
A4-3300
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.60

Celeron 1000M outperforms A4-3300 by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 1000M and A4-3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27292796
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiency1.830.86
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date20 January 2013 (11 years ago)7 September 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 1000M and A4-3300 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.8 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz2.5 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64K (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm32 nm
Die size118 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)105 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,400 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 1000M and A4-3300 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
SocketFCPGA988FM1
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1000M and A4-3300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron 1000M and A4-3300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1000M and A4-3300 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1000M and A4-3300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® ProcessorsRadeon HD 6410D
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1000M and A4-3300 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1000M and A4-3300.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes16no data

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 1000M 0.69
+15%
A4-3300 0.60

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.

Celeron 1000M 1069
+13.5%
A4-3300 942

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.

Celeron 1000M 296
+26%
A4-3300 235

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.

Celeron 1000M 509
+20.3%
A4-3300 423

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.69 0.60
Recency 20 January 2013 7 September 2011
Chip lithography 22 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 65 Watt

Celeron 1000M has a 15% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron 1000M is a notebook processor while A4-3300 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1000M and A4-3300, 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.


Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M
AMD A4-3300
A4-3300

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.


2.9 165 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 116 votes

Rate A4-3300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 1000M or A4-3300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.