A4-9120 vs Celeron G550

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G550
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.79
+2.6%
A4-9120
2017
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.77

Celeron G550 outperforms A4-9120 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G550 and A4-9120 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26262654
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.65no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataBristol Ridge
Power efficiency1.154.86
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)1 June 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$80no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron G550 and A4-9120 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 speed2.6 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz2.5 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)160 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size131 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature69 °C90 °C
Number of transistors504 million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G550 and A4-9120 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
SocketFCLGA1155BGA
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G550 and A4-9120. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Celeron G550 and A4-9120 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G550 and A4-9120 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 G550 and A4-9120. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth17 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel ProcessorsAMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 655 MHz)
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G550 and A4-9120 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G550 and A4-9120.

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.

Celeron G550 0.79
+2.6%
A4-9120 0.77

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 G550 1259
+3.5%
A4-9120 1217

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.79 0.77
Integrated graphics card 0.77 1.03
Recency 1 June 2012 1 June 2017
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 15 Watt

Celeron G550 has a 2.6% higher aggregate performance score.

A4-9120, on the other hand, has 33.8% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 5 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron G550 and A4-9120.

Note that Celeron G550 is a desktop processor while A4-9120 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G550 and A4-9120, 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 G550
Celeron G550
AMD A4-9120
A4-9120

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 91 vote

Rate Celeron G550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 501 vote

Rate A4-9120 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G550 or A4-9120, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.