A4-1350 vs Celeron T3000

A4-1350 vs Celeron T3000 Performance Spectrum

A4-1350

4 / 4

911

+0.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron T3000

905

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.

A4-1350 vs Celeron T3000 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.

A4-1350 vs Celeron T3000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-1350

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 8W instead of 35W, a 27W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8210, while Celeron T3000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron T3000

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (905 vs 911).
❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while A4-1350 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌337.5% higher power demand at 35W vs 8W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-1350 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-1350 better than Celeron T3000?

Yes. A4-1350 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.7% 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, A4-1350 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% 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, A4-1350 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A4-1350 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A4-1350 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $150 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron T3000 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (6.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

A4-1350 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009) 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.

A4-1350 vs Celeron T3000 Technical Specifications

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

A4-1350

The A4-1350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 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): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 911 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron T3000

The Celeron T3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 905 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-1350 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron T3000 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A4-1350 has 2 more cores. The A4-1350 is built on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. In PassMark, the A4-1350 scores 911 against the Celeron T3000's 905 — a 0.7% lead for the A4-1350. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-1350 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T3000.

Feature	A4-1350	Celeron T3000
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1 GHz	—
Base Clock	—	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	—
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Kabini (2013−2014)	—
PassMark	911	905
Geekbench 6 Single	136	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-1350 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron T3000 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A4-1350	Celeron T3000
Socket	FT3	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-1350) / not specified (Celeron T3000). The A4-1350 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8210), while the Celeron T3000 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-1350 targets Tablet. Direct competitor: A4-1350 rivals Atom Z3740.