A10 Micro-6700T vs Celeron N2805

A10 Micro-6700T vs Celeron N2805 Performance Spectrum

A10 Micro-6700T

4 / 4

1,426

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N2805

2 / 2

1,430

+0.3%

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 Micro-6700T vs Celeron N2805 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 Micro-6700T vs Celeron N2805: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A10 Micro-6700T

2014

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,426 vs 1,430).
❌25% higher power demand at 5W vs 4W.

Celeron N2805

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 5W, a 1W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2805 better than A10 Micro-6700T?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A10 Micro-6700T is ahead with a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2805 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2805 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2805 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2805 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark.

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

A10 Micro-6700T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A10 Micro-6700T vs Celeron N2805 Technical Specifications

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

A10 Micro-6700T

The A10 Micro-6700T is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 April 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Mullins (2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 1,426 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron N2805

The Celeron N2805 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.46 GHz, with boost up to 1.46 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.3 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,430 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A10 Micro-6700T packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron N2805 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A10 Micro-6700T has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the A10 Micro-6700T versus 1.46 GHz on the Celeron N2805 — a 40.4% clock advantage for the A10 Micro-6700T (base: 1.2 GHz vs 1.46 GHz). The A10 Micro-6700T uses the Mullins (2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron N2805 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A10 Micro-6700T scores 1,426 against the Celeron N2805's 1,430 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron N2805.

Feature	A10 Micro-6700T	Celeron N2805
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+51%	1.46 GHz
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	1.46 GHz+22%
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	2048 kB+300%	512K (per core)
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Mullins (2014)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,426	1,430
Geekbench 6 Single	250	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10 Micro-6700T uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2805 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A10 Micro-6700T versus 1066 on the Celeron N2805 — the A10 Micro-6700T supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A10 Micro-6700T supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 4 PCIe lanes.

Feature	A10 Micro-6700T	Celeron N2805
Socket	FT3	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+25%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A10 Micro-6700T) vs true (Celeron N2805). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R6 (A10 Micro-6700T) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2805) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10 Micro-6700T targets Tablet. Direct competitor: A10 Micro-6700T rivals Atom Z3770; Celeron N2805 rivals AMD E1-2100.