A6-3500 vs Celeron M 550
Aggregate performance score
A6-3500 outperforms Celeron M 550 by a whopping 207% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 550 and A6-3500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3110 | 2538 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.91 | 1.30 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 17 August 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 550 and A6-3500 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 3 (Tri-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 3 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 228 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 550 and A6-3500 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 65 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 550 and A6-3500 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 550 and A6-3500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Radeon HD 6530D |
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 | 0.29 | 0.89 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 3 |
| Threads | 1 | 3 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron M 550 has 116.7% lower power consumption.
A6-3500, on the other hand, has a 206.9% higher aggregate performance score, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.
The A6-3500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 550 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 550 is a notebook processor while A6-3500 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 550 and A6-3500, 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.
