A4-3330MX vs Celeron 827E
Aggregate performance score
A4-3330MX outperforms Celeron 827E by a whopping 109% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 827E and A4-3330MX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3171 | 2904 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD A-Series |
| Power efficiency | 1.28 | 1.01 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 20 December 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 827E and A4-3330MX 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 14 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1.5 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 504 Million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 827E and A4-3330MX 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FS1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 827E and A4-3330MX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G |
| FMA | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 827E and A4-3330MX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 827E and A4-3330MX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1066 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | AMD Radeon HD 6480G (444 MHz) |
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 | 0.23 | 0.48 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.34 | 0.66 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 45 Watt |
Celeron 827E has 164.7% lower power consumption.
A4-3330MX, on the other hand, has a 108.7% higher aggregate performance score, 94.1% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The A4-3330MX is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 827E in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 827E and A4-3330MX, 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.
