A9-9420e vs Celeron 3215U

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 3215U
2015
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.68
A9-9420e
2018
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.70
+2.9%

A9-9420e outperforms Celeron 3215U by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27382720
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency4.294.42
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date1 June 2015 (9 years ago)1 June 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e 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 speed1.7 GHzno data
Boost clock speed1.7 GHzno data
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache512 KB1 MB
L3 cache2 MBno data
Chip lithography14 nm28 nm
Die size82 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C90 °C
Number of transistors1300 Million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e 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 configuration1no data
SocketFCBGA1168BGA
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2Virtualization,
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Smart Response-no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Identity Protection+-
OS Guard-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e 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 Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for 5th Generation Intel ProcessorsAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+no data
Graphics max frequency850 MHzno data
InTru 3D+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX11.2/12no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes12no 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.

Celeron 3215U 0.68
A9-9420e 0.70
+2.9%

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.

Celeron 3215U 1083
A9-9420e 1107
+2.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.68 0.70
Integrated graphics card 0.77 1.48
Recency 1 June 2015 1 June 2018
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm

Celeron 3215U has a 100% more advanced lithography process.

A9-9420e, on the other hand, has a 2.9% higher aggregate performance score, 92.2% faster integrated GPU, and an age advantage of 3 years.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 3215U and A9-9420e, 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.


Intel Celeron 3215U
Celeron 3215U
AMD A9-9420e
A9-9420e

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.


3.7 27 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 150 votes

Rate A9-9420e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 3215U or A9-9420e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.