A4-1200 vs Celeron 3765U

A4-1200 vs Celeron 3765U Performance Spectrum

A4-1200

2 / 2

1,248

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3765U

2 / 2

1,252

+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.

A4-1200 vs Celeron 3765U 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 3765U: 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

✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,248 vs 1,252).

Celeron 3765U

2015

Why buy it

✅50% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3765U better than A4-1200?

Yes. Celeron 3765U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.2% 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 3765U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.2% 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 3765U 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 3765U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3765U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 3765U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2013) and 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 3765U 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 3765U

The Celeron 3765U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,252 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-1200 and Celeron 3765U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the A4-1200 versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 3765U — a 62.1% clock advantage for the Celeron 3765U. The A4-1200 uses the Temash (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 3765U uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-1200 scores 1,248 against the Celeron 3765U's 1,252 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron 3765U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-1200 vs 2 MB on the Celeron 3765U.

Feature	A4-1200	Celeron 3765U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1 GHz	1.9 GHz+90%
Base Clock	—	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Temash (2013)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	1,248	1,252
Geekbench 6 Single	70	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-1200 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3765U uses FCBGA1168 (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 3765U — the Celeron 3765U supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3765U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4-1200) vs 2 (Celeron 3765U). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-1200) vs 12 (Celeron 3765U) — the Celeron 3765U offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-1200	Celeron 3765U
Socket	FT3	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	DDR3L-1600+50%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	12+50%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-1200) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3765U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8180 (A4-1200) and HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3765U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-1200 targets Tablet, Celeron 3765U targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-1200 rivals Atom Z2760; Celeron 3765U rivals Pentium 3825U.