Celeron 3215U vs A4-9120

VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-9120
2017
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.77
+13.2%
Celeron 3215U
2015
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.68

A4-9120 outperforms Celeron 3215U by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26542738
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesBristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency4.864.29
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Broadwell (2015−2019)
Release date1 June 2017 (7 years ago)1 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U 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 speed2.2 GHz1.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz1.7 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cache160 KB128 KB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
L3 cacheno data2 MB
Chip lithography28 nm14 nm
Die size124.5 mm282 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 °C
Number of transistors1200 Million1300 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U 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 configurationno data1
SocketBGAFCBGA1168
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Smart Responseno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U 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 A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 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 R2 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 655 MHz)Intel HD Graphics for 5th Generation Intel Processors
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Graphics max frequencyno data850 MHz
InTru 3Dno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U integrated GPUs.

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

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data11.2/12

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data12

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.

A4-9120 0.77
+13.2%
Celeron 3215U 0.68

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.

A4-9120 1217
+12.4%
Celeron 3215U 1083

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.77 0.68
Integrated graphics card 1.03 0.77
Recency 1 June 2017 1 June 2015
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

A4-9120 has a 13.2% higher aggregate performance score, 33.8% faster integrated GPU, and an age advantage of 2 years.

Celeron 3215U, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The A4-9120 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 3215U in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-9120 and Celeron 3215U, 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 A4-9120
A4-9120
Intel Celeron 3215U
Celeron 3215U

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.


2.5 501 vote

Rate A4-9120 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 27 votes

Rate Celeron 3215U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-9120 or Celeron 3215U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.