Celeron N2920 vs A10-5800K
Aggregate performance score
A10-5800K outperforms Celeron N2920 by a whopping 212% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-5800K and Celeron N2920 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1997 | 2810 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.35 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series (Desktop) | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.77 | 8.11 |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 December 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $122 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A10-5800K and Celeron N2920 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 1.86 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on A10-5800K and Celeron N2920 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 | FM2 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-5800K and Celeron N2920. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
A10-5800K and Celeron N2920 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5800K and Celeron N2920 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 A10-5800K and Celeron N2920. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 7660D (800 MHz) | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 844 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A10-5800K and Celeron N2920 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-5800K and Celeron N2920.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
WinRAR 4.0
WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.87 | 0.60 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.32 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 1 December 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 7 Watt |
A10-5800K has a 211.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 71.4% faster integrated GPU.
Celeron N2920, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1328.6% lower power consumption.
The A10-5800K is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.
Note that A10-5800K is a desktop processor while Celeron N2920 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5800K and Celeron N2920, 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.
