A8-3500M vs Celeron N4000C
Aggregate performance score
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in the ranking | 2543 | 2544 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Series | no data | AMD A-Series |
Power efficiency | 13.93 | 2.39 |
Architecture codename | no data | Llano (2011−2012) |
Release date | 1 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 14 June 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
Threads | 2 | 4 |
Base clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
L3 cache | 4 MB | 0 KB |
Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
Die size | no data | 228 mm2 |
Maximum core temperature | 105 deg C | no data |
Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
64 bit support | + | + |
Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M 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 | FCBGA1090 | FS1 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G |
AES-NI | + | - |
vPro | - | no data |
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Speed Shift | - | no data |
Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
Idle States | + | no data |
Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
Smart Response | - | no data |
GPIO | + | no data |
Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
EDB | + | no data |
Secure Key | + | no data |
MPX | + | - |
Identity Protection | + | - |
SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
OS Guard | + | no data |
Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M 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 N4000C and A8-3500M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
Supported memory types | DDR4/LPDDR4 up to 2400 MT/s | DDR3 |
Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel UHD Graphics 600 | AMD Radeon HD 6620G |
Max video memory | 8 GB | no data |
Quick Sync Video | + | - |
Graphics max frequency | 650 MHz | no data |
Execution Units | 12 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M integrated GPUs.
Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
eDP | + | no data |
DisplayPort | + | - |
HDMI | + | - |
MIPI-DSI | + | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
4K resolution support | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
DirectX | 12 | no data |
OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M.
PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
PCI Express lanes | 6 | no data |
USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | no data |
Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
Number of USB ports | 8 | no data |
Integrated LAN | - | no data |
UART | + | no 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.
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
Integrated graphics card | 0.87 | 0.88 |
Recency | 1 April 2019 | 14 June 2011 |
Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
Threads | 2 | 4 |
Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron N4000C has an age advantage of 7 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.
A8-3500M, on the other hand, has 1.1% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N4000C and A8-3500M, 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.