Celeron 3755U vs A10-5757M
Aggregate performance score
A10-5757M outperforms Celeron 3755U by a whopping 161% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1944 | 2656 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 5.25 | 4.71 |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Broadwell-U (2015) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 5 January 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 17 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 82 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 1300 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FP2 | FCBGA1168 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U 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 A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 8650G | Intel® HD Graphics for 5th Generation Intel® Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 800 MHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 11.2/12 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
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 | 1.98 | 0.76 |
| Recency | 1 June 2013 | 5 January 2015 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
A10-5757M has a 160.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron 3755U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
The A10-5757M is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 3755U in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5757M and Celeron 3755U, 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.
