Celeron N4000 vs A8-3800
Aggregate performance score
A8-3800 outperforms Celeron N4000 by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-3800 and Celeron N4000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2240 | 2478 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Goldmont Plus (2017) |
| Release date | 30 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 11 December 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
A8-3800 and Celeron N4000 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 11 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 112 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 deg C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on A8-3800 and Celeron N4000 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 | FCBGA1090 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3800 and Celeron N4000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
A8-3800 and Celeron N4000 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3800 and Celeron N4000 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3800 and Celeron N4000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6550D | Intel UHD Graphics 600 |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 650 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A8-3800 and Celeron N4000 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by A8-3800 and Celeron N4000 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A8-3800 and Celeron N4000 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3800 and Celeron N4000.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 6 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | no 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.
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 | 1.32 | 0.95 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.04 | 0.87 |
| Recency | 30 June 2011 | 11 December 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6 Watt |
A8-3800 has a 38.9% higher aggregate performance score, 19.5% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron N4000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 983.3% lower power consumption.
The A8-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N4000 in performance tests.
Note that A8-3800 is a desktop processor while Celeron N4000 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3800 and Celeron N4000, 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.
