A4-3300M vs Celeron N3160

A4-3300M vs Celeron N3160 Performance Spectrum

A4-3300M

2 / 2

1,186

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N3160

4 / 4

1,195

+0.8%

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 N3160 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 N3160: 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

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,186 vs 1,195).
❌775% higher power demand at 35W vs 4W.

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 35W, a 31W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3160 better than A4-3300M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3300M is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3160 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3160 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3160 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2011) 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.

A4-3300M vs Celeron N3160 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 N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) 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: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3300M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3300M versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 — a 11% clock advantage for the A4-3300M (base: 1.9 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The A4-3300M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N3160 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3300M scores 1,186 against the Celeron N3160's 1,195 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron N3160. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3300M	Celeron N3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+12%	2.24 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz+19%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB+100%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,186	1,195
Geekbench 6 Single	256	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3300M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3160 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3300M versus 1600 on the Celeron N3160 — the Celeron N3160 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3300M supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3300M) vs 4 (Celeron N3160) — the A4-3300M offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A60M,A70M (A4-3300M) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3160).

Feature	A4-3300M	Celeron N3160
Socket	FS1	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3300M) vs true (Celeron N3160). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3300M) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3160) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3300M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3300M rivals Pentium B940; Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.