Celeron B820 vs A4-3400
Aggregate performance score
A4-3400 outperforms Celeron B820 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-3400 and Celeron B820 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2733 | 2890 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.00 | 1.35 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 7 September 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 July 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $86 |
Detailed specifications
A4-3400 and Celeron B820 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 17 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A4-3400 and Celeron B820 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 | FM1 | FCPGA988,PGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3400 and Celeron B820. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| FMA | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
A4-3400 and Celeron B820 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3400 and Celeron B820 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 A4-3400 and Celeron B820. 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 | 21.335 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon HD 6410D | Intel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A4-3400 and Celeron B820 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| SDVO | no data | + |
| CRT | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-3400 and Celeron B820.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.69 | 0.50 |
| Recency | 7 September 2011 | 1 July 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
A4-3400 has a 38% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron B820, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 85.7% lower power consumption.
The A4-3400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B820 in performance tests.
Note that A4-3400 is a desktop processor while Celeron B820 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3400 and Celeron B820, 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.
