A4-3300M
VS
Celeron G465

A4-3300M vs Celeron G465

AMD

A4-3300M

2 Cores2 Thrd35 WWMax: 2.5 GHz2011
VS
Intel

Celeron G465

1 Cores2 Thrd35 WWMax: 1.9 GHz2012

Performance Spectrum - CPU

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The A4-3300M is positioned at rank 888 and the Celeron G465 is on rank 867, so the Celeron G465 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar A4-3300M

#876
Atom x5-Z8300
MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A
1484%
#877
Atom Z3735G
MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A
1462%
#878
Core i5-480M
MSRP: $81|Avg: $77
1342%
#879
Core i5-460M
MSRP: $80|Avg: $129
1336%
#880
Core i5-2540M
MSRP: $266|Avg: $10
1324%
#882
Core i5-450M
MSRP: $32|Avg: $31
1279%
#883
Core i3-380M
MSRP: $49|Avg: $25
1226%
#884
Core i5-430M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33
1224%
#885
Core 2 Duo T6600
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4
1191%
#888
A4-3300M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#889
Core i7-7820EQ
MSRP: $378|Avg: $378
100%
#890
Celeron 7305
MSRP: $128|Avg: $107
100%
#891
E-300
MSRP: $60|Avg: $20
99%
#892
Core i7-7820HK
MSRP: $378|Avg: N/A
99%
#895
Pentium B940
MSRP: $134|Avg: $11
99%
#896
Core i5-8305G
MSRP: $350|Avg: $350
98%
#897
Celeron 6305
MSRP: $107|Avg: $80
98%
#900
Core i7-8705G
MSRP: $400|Avg: $400
97%
#902
Pentium Dual Core T2410
MSRP: $100|Avg: $100
96%
#903
FX-8800P
MSRP: $150|Avg: $45
96%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron G465

#1
Ryzen 9 7950X
MSRP: $194|Avg: $20
18412%
#2
Core i9-10900T
MSRP: $120|Avg: $5
17398%
#3
Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE
MSRP: $423|Avg: $5
12632%
#4
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85
3805%
#5
Ryzen 9 9950X
MSRP: $649|Avg: $129
3014%
#6
Ryzen 5 8400F
MSRP: $303|Avg: $55
2637%
#7
Ryzen 7 PRO 2700
MSRP: $299|Avg: $60
1510%
#8
Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP: $229|Avg: $55
1491%
#9
Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G
MSRP: $150|Avg: $60
1357%
#10
Core Ultra 5 245KF
MSRP: $294|Avg: $189
1357%
#11
Ryzen 5 5500
MSRP: $159|Avg: $85
1342%
#12
Ryzen 5 3600
MSRP: $199|Avg: $80
1306%
#13
Core i3-9100E
MSRP: $202|Avg: $30
1287%
#14
Core Ultra 5 245K
MSRP: $319|Avg: $200
1282%
#15
Core i3-8300T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $25
1271%
#298
Core i9-7960X
MSRP: $1699|Avg: $185
97%
#867
Celeron G465
MSRP: $70|Avg: $37
100%
#868
Athlon II X4 630
MSRP: $129|Avg: $15
100%
#869
A6-7400K
MSRP: $101|Avg: $43
98%
#870
Core i7-4765T
MSRP: $303|Avg: $50
98%
#871
Core i7-4770TE
MSRP: $303|Avg: $303
98%
#872
Core i5-4570T
MSRP: $195|Avg: $45
98%
#873
Athlon II X2 260u
MSRP: $60|Avg: $10
97%
#875
A4-3420
MSRP: $65|Avg: $30
97%
#876
Core i5-5675R
MSRP: $339|Avg: $392
97%
#877
Pentium G3470
MSRP: $150|Avg: $130
96%
#878
Core i5-3335S
MSRP: $225|Avg: $30
96%
#879
Core i5-3470T
MSRP: $184|Avg: $35
96%
#881
Pentium G6960
MSRP: $89|Avg: $15
95%
#882
Core i5-2500T
MSRP: $182|Avg: $30
95%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The Celeron G465 leads in gaming performance. However, the A4-3300M is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 0.1% greater multi-core processing power.
InsightA4-3300MCeleron G465
Gaming
Lower gaming performance
Superior gaming performance
Workstation
Better multi-core power
Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price
More affordable ($0)
⚠️ Higher cost ($37)
Longevity
🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm)
🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

InsightA4-3300MCeleron G465
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost
More affordable ($0)
⚠️ Higher cost ($37)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of A4-3300M and Celeron G465

AMD

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.

Intel

Celeron G465

The Celeron G465 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 1.5 MB. L2 cache: 256 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,185 points. Launch price was $80.

Processing Power

The A4-3300M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron G465 offers 1 cores / 2 threads — the A4-3300M has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3300M versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron G465 — a 27.3% clock advantage for the A4-3300M (base: 1.9 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The A4-3300M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron G465 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3300M scores 1,186 against the Celeron G465's 1,185 — a 0.1% lead for the A4-3300M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 256 vs 300, a 15.8% lead for the Celeron G465 that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3300M vs 1.5 MB on the Celeron G465.

FeatureA4-3300MCeleron G465
Cores / Threads
2 / 2+100%
1 / 2
Boost Clock
2.5 GHz+32%
1.9 GHz
Base Clock
1.9 GHz
1.9 GHz
L3 Cache
0 kB
1.5 MB
L2 Cache
1 MB (per core)+300%
256 kB
Process
32 nm
32 nm
Architecture
Llano (2011−2012)
Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark
1,186
1,185
Geekbench 6 Single
256
300+17%
🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3300M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G465 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. The Celeron G465 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: A60M,A70M (A4-3300M) and H61,B65,H67,Z68 (Celeron G465).

FeatureA4-3300MCeleron G465
Socket
FS1
LGA1155
PCIe Generation
PCIe 2.0
PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity
16 GB
32 GB+100%
RAM Channels
2
2
ECC Support
PCIe Lanes
16
16
🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3300M) vs VT-x (Celeron G465). Both include integrated graphics Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3300M) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron G465) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3300M targets Budget Laptop, Celeron G465 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-3300M rivals Pentium B940; Celeron G465 rivals Pentium G630.

FeatureA4-3300MCeleron G465
Integrated GPU
Yes
Yes
IGPU Model
Radeon HD 6480G
HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked
No
No
AVX-512
No
No
Virtualization
AMD-V
VT-x
Target Use
Budget Laptop
Budget