A10-4657M vs Celeron 3965U

A10-4657M vs Celeron 3965U Performance Spectrum

A10-4657M

4 / 4

1,759

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3965U

2 / 2

1,753

0.0%

Celeron P4600

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A10-4657M vs Celeron 3965U FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A10-4657M vs Celeron 3965U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A10-4657M

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 15W, a 11W reduction.
✅60% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 10) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (450 vs 600).

Celeron 3965U

2017

Why buy it

✅+33.3% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌275% higher power demand at 15W vs 4W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3965U better than A10-4657M?

Yes. Celeron 3965U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 3965U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

There is no clear productivity winner in the data we have.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron 3965U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3965U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron 3965U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A10-4657M vs Celeron 3965U Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A10-4657M

The A10-4657M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,759 points. Launch price was $130.

Celeron 3965U

The Celeron 3965U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake-U (2017) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1356. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,753 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A10-4657M packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 3965U offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A10-4657M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the A10-4657M versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 3965U — a 37% clock advantage for the A10-4657M (base: 2.3 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The A10-4657M uses the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 3965U uses Kaby Lake-U (2017) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A10-4657M scores 1,759 against the Celeron 3965U's 1,753 — a 0.3% lead for the A10-4657M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 450 vs 600, a 28.6% lead for the Celeron 3965U that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 1,200 vs 1,200 (0% advantage for the Celeron 3965U).

Feature	A10-4657M	Celeron 3965U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz+45%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz+5%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	4 MB	256K (per core)+6300%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Trinity (2012−2013)	Kaby Lake-U (2017)
PassMark	1,759	1,753
Geekbench 6 Single	450	600+33%
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,200	1,200

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-4657M uses the BGA socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3965U uses BGA1356 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A10-4657M versus DDR4-2133 on the Celeron 3965U — the Celeron 3965U supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 32 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A10-4657M) vs 10 (Celeron 3965U) — the A10-4657M offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A10-4657M	Celeron 3965U
Socket	BGA	BGA1356
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR4-2133+33%
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+60%	10

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A10-4657M) vs VT-x (Celeron 3965U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 7660G (A10-4657M) and Intel HD Graphics 610 (Celeron 3965U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10-4657M targets Laptop, Celeron 3965U targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A10-4657M rivals Core i3-2330M; Celeron 3965U rivals Pentium Gold 4415U.