A10 Micro-6700T vs Celeron N4000C

A10 Micro-6700T vs Celeron N4000C Performance Spectrum

A10 Micro-6700T

4 / 4

1,426

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N4000C

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 N4000C 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 N4000C: 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

✅Draws 5W instead of 6W, a 1W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R6, while Celeron N4000C needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,426 vs 1,430).

Celeron N4000C

2019

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌20% higher power demand at 6W vs 5W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A10 Micro-6700T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N4000C better than A10 Micro-6700T?

Yes. Celeron N4000C is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% better PassMark, 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 N4000C is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.0% 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, Celeron N4000C 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 N4000C still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N4000C comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N4000C makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 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 Micro-6700T vs Celeron N4000C 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 N4000C

The Celeron N4000C is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4/LPDDR4 up to 2400 MT/s. Passmark benchmark score: 1,430 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A10 Micro-6700T packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron N4000C 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 2.6 GHz on the Celeron N4000C — a 16.7% clock advantage for the Celeron N4000C (base: 1.2 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The A10 Micro-6700T is built on the Mullins (2014) architecture. In PassMark, the A10 Micro-6700T scores 1,426 against the Celeron N4000C's 1,430 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron N4000C.

Feature	A10 Micro-6700T	Celeron N4000C
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	2.6 GHz+18%
Base Clock	1.2 GHz+9%	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	—	4 MB
L2 Cache	2048 kB	—
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Mullins (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 N4000C uses FCBGA1090 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A10 Micro-6700T	Celeron N4000C
Socket	FT3	FCBGA1090
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A10 Micro-6700T) / not specified (Celeron N4000C). The A10 Micro-6700T includes integrated graphics (Radeon R6), while the Celeron N4000C requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10 Micro-6700T targets Tablet. Direct competitor: A10 Micro-6700T rivals Atom Z3770.