A4-3320M vs Celeron 877

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 877
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.44
+4.8%
A4-3320M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.42

Celeron 877 outperforms A4-3320M by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 877 and A4-3320M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29452970
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD A-Series
Power efficiency2.451.14
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date1 July 2012 (12 years ago)20 December 2011 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 877 and A4-3320M 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 speed1.4 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed1.4 GHz2.6 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier14no data
L1 cache64K (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size131 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors504 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 877 and A4-3320M 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1023FS1
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 877 and A4-3320M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.23DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G
FMA+-
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 877 and A4-3320M 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 877 and A4-3320M are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 877 and A4-3320M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel ProcessorsAMD Radeon HD 6480G (444 MHz)
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 877 and A4-3320M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 877 and A4-3320M.

PCIe version2.0no data
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 877 0.44
+4.8%
A4-3320M 0.42

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 877 693
+3.7%
A4-3320M 668

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.44 0.42
Integrated graphics card 0.77 0.66
Recency 1 July 2012 20 December 2011
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 35 Watt

Celeron 877 has a 4.8% higher aggregate performance score, 16.7% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 6 months, and 105.9% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron 877 and A4-3320M.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 877 and A4-3320M, 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 877
Celeron 877
AMD A4-3320M
A4-3320M

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.


4.3 17 votes

Rate Celeron 877 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 9 votes

Rate A4-3320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 877 or A4-3320M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.