A4-1200 vs Celeron 2950M

A4-1200 vs Celeron 2950M Performance Spectrum

A4-1200

2 / 2

1,248

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 2950M

2 / 2

1,238

0.0%

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.

A4-1200 vs Celeron 2950M 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.

A4-1200 vs Celeron 2950M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-1200

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (70 vs 352).

Celeron 2950M

2013

Why buy it

✅+402.9% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,238 vs 1,248).
❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-1200 better than Celeron 2950M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2950M is ahead with a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4-1200 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4-1200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-1200 still makes the most sense overall. A4-1200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark.

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

A4-1200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-1200 vs Celeron 2950M Technical Specifications

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

A4-1200

The A4-1200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Temash (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,248 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron 2950M

The Celeron 2950M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,238 points. Launch price was $75.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-1200 and Celeron 2950M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the A4-1200 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron 2950M — a 66.7% clock advantage for the Celeron 2950M. The A4-1200 uses the Temash (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 2950M uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-1200 scores 1,248 against the Celeron 2950M's 1,238 — a 0.8% lead for the A4-1200. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 70 vs 352, a 133.6% lead for the Celeron 2950M that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-1200 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 2950M.

Feature	A4-1200	Celeron 2950M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1 GHz	2 GHz+100%
Base Clock	—	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Temash (2013)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	1,248	1,238
Geekbench 6 Single	70	352+403%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	636

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-1200 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 2950M uses PGA946 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the A4-1200 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 2950M — the Celeron 2950M supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2950M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4-1200) vs 2 (Celeron 2950M). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-1200) vs 16 (Celeron 2950M) — the Celeron 2950M offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-1200	Celeron 2950M
Socket	FT3	PGA946
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	DDR3L-1600+50%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-1200) vs VT-x (Celeron 2950M). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8180 (A4-1200) and HD Graphics (Haswell) (Celeron 2950M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-1200 targets Tablet, Celeron 2950M targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-1200 rivals Atom Z2760; Celeron 2950M rivals Pentium 2020M.