A10-7300 vs Celeron 3965U

A10-7300 vs Celeron 3965U Performance Spectrum

A10-7300

4 / 4

1,736

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3965U

2 / 2

1,753

+1.0%

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.

A10-7300 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.

A10-7300 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.

A10-7300

2014

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 PassMark (1,736 vs 1,753).
❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while Celeron 3965U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Celeron 3965U

2017

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is A10-7300 better than Celeron 3965U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A10-7300 is ahead with a 0.5% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3965U pulls ahead with 1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3965U is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A10-7300 is the better buy right now. A10-7300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $150 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.5% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Celeron 3965U is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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 2014) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A10-7300 vs Celeron 3965U Technical Specifications

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

A10-7300

The A10-7300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,736 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 A10-7300 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 3965U offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A10-7300 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the A10-7300 versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 3965U — a 37% clock advantage for the A10-7300 (base: 1.9 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The A10-7300 uses the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron 3965U uses Kaby Lake-U (2017) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A10-7300 scores 1,736 against the Celeron 3965U's 1,753 — a 1% lead for the Celeron 3965U.

Feature	A10-7300	Celeron 3965U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz+45%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	2.2 GHz+16%
L3 Cache	—	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	4096 kB+1500%	256K (per core)
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Kaveri (2014−2015)	Kaby Lake-U (2017)
PassMark	1,736	1,753
Geekbench 6 Single	—	600
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,200

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-7300 uses the FP3 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 A10-7300 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. 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 (A10-7300) vs 10 (Celeron 3965U) — the A10-7300 offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FP3 (A10-7300) and SoC (Celeron 3965U).

Feature	A10-7300	Celeron 3965U
Socket	FP3	BGA1356
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR4-2133+33%
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: AMD-V (A10-7300) vs VT-x (Celeron 3965U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R6 (A10-7300) and Intel HD Graphics 610 (Celeron 3965U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10-7300 targets Laptop, Celeron 3965U targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A10-7300 rivals Core i3-4010U; Celeron 3965U rivals Pentium Gold 4415U.