Celeron N2815 vs A6-6310

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-6310
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.05
+239%
Celeron N2815
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 7 Watt
0.31

A6-6310 outperforms Celeron N2815 by a whopping 239% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-6310 and Celeron N2815 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24313100
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency6.593.89
Architecture codenameBeema (2014)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date29 April 2014 (10 years ago)1 December 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

A6-6310 and Celeron N2815 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.8 GHz1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2.13 GHz
L1 cacheno data112 KB
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB
L3 cacheno data1 MB
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors930 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A6-6310 and Celeron N2815 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.

SocketFT3bFCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-6310 and Celeron N2815. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVXno data
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Smart Connectno data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

A6-6310 and Celeron N2815 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-6310 and Celeron N2815 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-6310 and Celeron N2815. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1865DDR3L-1066
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channels12

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R4 GraphicsIntel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data756 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-6310 and Celeron N2815 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A6-6310 and Celeron N2815 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-6310 and Celeron N2815.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanesno data4
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

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.

A6-6310 1.05
+239%
Celeron N2815 0.31

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.

A6-6310 1674
+240%
Celeron N2815 492

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.

A6-6310 229
+51.7%
Celeron N2815 151

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.

A6-6310 602
+140%
Celeron N2815 251

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

A6-6310 1829
+71.3%
Celeron N2815 1068

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

A6-6310 5612
+175%
Celeron N2815 2038

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

A6-6310 26.64
+117%
Celeron N2815 57.8

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.

A6-6310 2
+181%
Celeron N2815 1

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

A6-6310 157
+183%
Celeron N2815 56

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made 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 (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

A6-6310 47
+44.6%
Celeron N2815 33

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.

A6-6310 0.57
+58.3%
Celeron N2815 0.36

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

A6-6310 1.2
+1100%
Celeron N2815 0.1

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

A6-6310 11
+145%
Celeron N2815 5

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

A6-6310 52
+117%
Celeron N2815 24

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

A6-6310 1247
+110%
Celeron N2815 594

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

A6-6310 3549
+164%
Celeron N2815 1343

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

A6-6310 1233
+57.9%
Celeron N2815 781

Geekbench 2

A6-6310 4123
+115%
Celeron N2815 1917

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.05 0.31
Recency 29 April 2014 1 December 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 7 Watt

A6-6310 has a 238.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron N2815, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The A6-6310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2815 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-6310 and Celeron N2815, 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 A6-6310
A6-6310
Intel Celeron N2815
Celeron N2815

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.


3.5 242 votes

Rate A6-6310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 40 votes

Rate Celeron N2815 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-6310 or Celeron N2815, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.