A4-1200 vs Celeron J3160

A4-1200 vs Celeron J3160 Performance Spectrum

A4-1200

2 / 2

1,248

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron J3160

4 / 4

1,250

+0.2%

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 J3160 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 J3160: 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 6W, a 2W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (70 vs 350).
❌Lower PassMark (1,248 vs 1,250).

Celeron J3160

2016

Why buy it

✅+400% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌50% higher power demand at 6W vs 4W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J3160 better than A4-1200?

Yes. Celeron J3160 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% 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 J3160 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.4% 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 J3160 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron J3160 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J3160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 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 J3160 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 J3160

The Celeron J3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,250 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-1200 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron J3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron J3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the A4-1200 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron J3160 — a 76.5% clock advantage for the Celeron J3160. The A4-1200 uses the Temash (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron J3160 uses Airmont (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-1200 scores 1,248 against the Celeron J3160's 1,250 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron J3160. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 70 vs 350, a 133.3% lead for the Celeron J3160 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-1200	Celeron J3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1 GHz	2.24 GHz+124%
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+25500%	2 MB
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Temash (2013)	Airmont (2016)
PassMark	1,248	1,250
Geekbench 6 Single	70	350+400%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	650

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-1200 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron J3160 uses FCBGA1170 (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 J3160 — the Celeron J3160 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (A4-1200) vs 2 (Celeron J3160). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-1200) vs 4 (Celeron J3160) — the A4-1200 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-1200	Celeron J3160
Socket	FT3	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	DDR3L-1600+50%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8+100%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-1200) vs VT-x (Celeron J3160). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8180 (A4-1200) and HD Graphics 400 (Celeron J3160) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-1200 targets Tablet, Celeron J3160 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: A4-1200 rivals Atom Z2760; Celeron J3160 rivals Pentium J3710.