A10-4657M vs Celeron M 380
Aggregate performance score
A10-4657M outperforms Celeron M 380 by a whopping 553% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 380 and A10-4657M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3284 | 2411 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD A-Series |
| Power efficiency | 0.77 | 3.00 |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | no data | 1 April 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 380 and A10-4657M 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L2 cache | no data | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1303 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.004V-1.292V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 380 and A10-4657M 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.
| Socket | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 | BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 380 and A10-4657M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M 380 and A10-4657M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 380 and A10-4657M are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 7660G (497 - 686 MHz) |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.17 | 1.11 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 380 has 66.7% lower power consumption.
A10-4657M, on the other hand, has a 552.9% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 181.3% more advanced lithography process.
The A10-4657M is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 380 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 380 and A10-4657M, 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.
