Celeron G1620T vs A4-6320
Aggregated performance score
Celeron G1620T outperforms A4-6320 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
Comparing A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2345 | 2342 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | no data | 2.40 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | December 2013 (10 years ago) | 1 September 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $42 |
| Current price | $201 | $66 (1.6x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed Specifications
A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T 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 | 3.8 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 96 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1024 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 94 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | 65 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T 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 | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | + |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| PowerNow | + | no data |
| PowerGating | + | no data |
| Out-of-band client management | - | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | no data |
| 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 | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1600 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon™ HD 8370D | Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors |
| Number of pipelines | 128 | no data |
| Enduro | + | no data |
| Switchable graphics | 1 | no data |
| UVD | + | no data |
| VCE | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
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.
Celeron G1620T outperforms A4-6320 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Celeron G1620T outperforms A4-6320 by 1% in Passmark.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 0.97 | 0.98 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-6320 and Celeron G1620T, 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.
