Celeron M U3400 vs A6-7310

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-7310
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 12 Watt
1.69
+483%
Celeron M U3400
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.29

A6-7310 outperforms Celeron M U3400 by a whopping 483% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20603121
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron M
Power efficiency6.391.52
Architecture codenameCarrizo-L (2015)Arrandale (2010−2011)
Release date7 May 2015 (9 years ago)24 May 2010 (14 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400 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 speed2 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.06 GHz
Bus rateno data2500 MHz
L2 cache2048 KB512 KB
L3 cacheno data2 MB
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data81+114 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 °C
Number of transistors930 Million382+177 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400 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.

SocketFP4BGA1288
Power consumption (TDP)12-25 Watt18 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VTno data
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3L-1866DDR3
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R4 Graphicsno data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400.

PCIe version2.0no data

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.

A6-7310 1.69
+483%
Celeron M U3400 0.29

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.

A6-7310 1801
+49.4%
Celeron M U3400 1205

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.

A6-7310 5075
+119%
Celeron M U3400 2317

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.69 0.29
Recency 7 May 2015 24 May 2010
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 18 Watt

A6-7310 has a 482.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The A6-7310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M U3400 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-7310 and Celeron M U3400, 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 A6-7310
A6-7310
Intel Celeron M U3400
Celeron M U3400

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.


3.3 513 votes

Rate A6-7310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 4 votes

Rate Celeron M U3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-7310 or Celeron M U3400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.