A4-3320M vs Celeron 2950M

A4-3320M vs Celeron 2950M Performance Spectrum

A4-3320M

2 / 2

1,241

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 2950M

2 / 2

1,238

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.

A4-3320M vs Celeron 2950M 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.

A4-3320M vs Celeron 2950M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3320M

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (251 vs 352).

Celeron 2950M

2013

Why buy it

✅+40.2% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,238 vs 1,241).
❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3320M better than Celeron 2950M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2950M is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4-3320M pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4-3320M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-3320M still makes the most sense overall. A4-3320M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 2950M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-3320M vs Celeron 2950M Technical Specifications

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

A4-3320M

The A4-3320M 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 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 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: 1,241 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron 2950M

The Celeron 2950M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,238 points. Launch price was $75.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3320M and Celeron 2950M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A4-3320M versus 2 GHz on the Celeron 2950M — a 26.1% clock advantage for the A4-3320M (base: 2 GHz vs 2 GHz). The A4-3320M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 2950M uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3320M scores 1,241 against the Celeron 2950M's 1,238 — a 0.2% lead for the A4-3320M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 251 vs 352, a 33.5% lead for the Celeron 2950M that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3320M vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 2950M.

Feature	A4-3320M	Celeron 2950M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+30%	2 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	1,241	1,238
Geekbench 6 Single	251	352+40%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	636

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3320M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2950M uses PGA946 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3320M versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 2950M — the Celeron 2950M supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2950M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes.

Feature	A4-3320M	Celeron 2950M
Socket	FS1	PGA946
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3L-1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	32 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3320M) vs VT-x (Celeron 2950M). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3320M) and HD Graphics (Haswell) (Celeron 2950M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3320M targets Budget Laptop, Celeron 2950M targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-3320M rivals Pentium B970; Celeron 2950M rivals Pentium 2020M.