A8-3800 vs Celeron G3900E
Aggregate performance score
A8-3800 outperforms Celeron G3900E by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G3900E and A8-3800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2292 | 2287 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.18 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.46 | 1.88 |
| Architecture codename | Skylake (2015−2016) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 2 January 2016 (8 years ago) | 30 June 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron G3900E and A8-3800 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 24 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 98.57 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 1750 Million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G3900E and A8-3800 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G3900E and A8-3800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G3900E and A8-3800 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G3900E and A8-3800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | LPDDR3-1866 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 34.134 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 510 | AMD Radeon HD 6550D |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G3900E and A8-3800.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.28 | 1.29 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.61 | 1.04 |
| Recency | 2 January 2016 | 30 June 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron G3900E has 54.8% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.
A8-3800, on the other hand, has a 0.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron G3900E and A8-3800.
Be aware that Celeron G3900E is a notebook processor while A8-3800 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G3900E and A8-3800, 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.
