A4-3300M vs Celeron 3755U

A4-3300M vs Celeron 3755U Performance Spectrum

A4-3300M

2 / 2

1,186

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3755U

2 / 2

1,182

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.

A4-3300M vs Celeron 3755U 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.

A4-3300M vs Celeron 3755U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3300M

2011

Why buy it

✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌133.3% higher power demand at 35W vs 15W.

Celeron 3755U

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 35W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,182 vs 1,186).

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3300M better than Celeron 3755U?

Yes. A4-3300M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A4-3300M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.7% 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, A4-3300M 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?

A4-3300M still makes the most sense overall. A4-3300M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 3755U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-3300M vs Celeron 3755U Technical Specifications

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

A4-3300M

The A4-3300M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,186 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron 3755U

The Celeron 3755U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,182 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3300M and Celeron 3755U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3300M versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U — a 38.1% clock advantage for the A4-3300M (base: 1.9 GHz vs 1.7 GHz). The A4-3300M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 3755U uses Broadwell-U (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3300M scores 1,186 against the Celeron 3755U's 1,182 — a 0.3% lead for the A4-3300M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3300M vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3755U.

Feature	A4-3300M	Celeron 3755U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+47%	1.7 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz+12%	1.7 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Broadwell-U (2015)
PassMark	1,186	1,182
Geekbench 6 Single	256	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	625

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3300M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 3755U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3300M versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3755U — the Celeron 3755U supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3300M) vs 12 (Celeron 3755U) — the A4-3300M offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A60M,A70M (A4-3300M) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3755U).

Feature	A4-3300M	Celeron 3755U
Socket	FS1	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3L-1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+33%	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3300M) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3755U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3300M) and HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3755U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3300M targets Budget Laptop, Celeron 3755U targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-3300M rivals Pentium B940; Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U.