Celeron 1007U vs A4-3305M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-3305M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.47
Celeron 1007U
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.53
+12.8%

Celeron 1007U outperforms A4-3305M by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29222867
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.272.95
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)20 January 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.9 GHz1.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz1.5 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
Multiplierno data15
L1 cache128K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size228 mm2118 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data105 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million1,400 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U 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 configuration11
SocketFS1FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480GIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6480G (593 MHz)Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

A4-3305M 0.47
Celeron 1007U 0.53
+12.8%

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.

A4-3305M 751
Celeron 1007U 842
+12.1%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

A4-3305M 236
Celeron 1007U 252
+6.8%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

A4-3305M 361
Celeron 1007U 422
+16.9%

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.

A4-3305M 1614
+0.2%
Celeron 1007U 1610

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.

A4-3305M 1
Celeron 1007U 1
+8%

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.

A4-3305M 0.56
Celeron 1007U 0.63
+12.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.47 0.53
Integrated graphics card 0.66 0.77
Recency 14 June 2011 20 January 2013
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 17 Watt

Celeron 1007U has a 12.8% higher aggregate performance score, 16.7% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 1 year, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 105.9% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 1007U is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3305M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3305M and Celeron 1007U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A4-3305M
A4-3305M
Intel Celeron 1007U
Celeron 1007U

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 114 votes

Rate A4-3305M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 126 votes

Rate Celeron 1007U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-3305M or Celeron 1007U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.