A10-5745M vs Celeron 3965U

A10-5745M vs Celeron 3965U Performance Spectrum

A10-5745M

4 / 4

1,767

+0.8%

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.

A10-5745M 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.

A10-5745M 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.

A10-5745M

2013

Why buy it

✅60% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 10) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌66.7% higher power demand at 25W vs 15W.

Celeron 3965U

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 25W, a 10W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,753 vs 1,767).

Quick Answers

So, is A10-5745M better than Celeron 3965U?

Yes. A10-5745M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A10-5745M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A10-5745M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A10-5745M still makes the most sense overall. A10-5745M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% 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.

A10-5745M vs Celeron 3965U Technical Specifications

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

A10-5745M

The A10-5745M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Richland (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FP2. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,767 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 A10-5745M packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 3965U offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A10-5745M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.9 GHz on the A10-5745M versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 3965U — a 27.5% clock advantage for the A10-5745M (base: 2.1 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The A10-5745M uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 3965U uses Kaby Lake-U (2017) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A10-5745M scores 1,767 against the Celeron 3965U's 1,753 — a 0.8% lead for the A10-5745M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A10-5745M vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3965U.

Feature	A10-5745M	Celeron 3965U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.9 GHz+32%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.1 GHz	2.2 GHz+5%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Kaby Lake-U (2017)
PassMark	1,767	1,753
Geekbench 6 Single	—	600
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,200

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-5745M uses the FP2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3965U uses BGA1356 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1333 on the A10-5745M versus DDR4-2133 on the Celeron 3965U — the Celeron 3965U supports 60% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3965U supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A10-5745M) vs 10 (Celeron 3965U) — the A10-5745M offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FP2 (A10-5745M) and SoC (Celeron 3965U).

Feature	A10-5745M	Celeron 3965U
Socket	FP2	BGA1356
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	1333	DDR4-2133+60%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	32 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+60%	10

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (A10-5745M) vs VT-x (Celeron 3965U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8610G (A10-5745M) and Intel HD Graphics 610 (Celeron 3965U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3965U targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A10-5745M rivals Core i3-4010U; Celeron 3965U rivals Pentium Gold 4415U.