Celeron 2.20 vs A4-3300
Aggregate performance score
A4-3300 outperforms Celeron 2.20 by a whopping 556% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2980 | 3567 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 0.35 | 0.05 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | 7 September 2011 (13 years ago) | November 2002 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A4-3300 and Celeron 2.20 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A4-3300 and Celeron 2.20 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 | FM1 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 73 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3300 and Celeron 2.20 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3300 and Celeron 2.20. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon HD 6410D | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-3300 and Celeron 2.20.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.59 | 0.09 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 73 Watt |
A4-3300 has a 555.6% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 306.3% more advanced lithography process, and 12.3% lower power consumption.
The AMD A4-3300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 2.20 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
