A4-3330MX vs Celeron 1020M

A4-3330MX vs Celeron 1020M Performance Spectrum

A4-3330MX

2 / 2

1,264

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 1020M

2 / 2

1,275

+0.9%

Celeron N3000

Pentium T3400

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

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.

A4-3330MX vs Celeron 1020M 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.

A4-3330MX vs Celeron 1020M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3330MX

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 45W instead of 512W, a 467W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,264 vs 1,275).

Celeron 1020M

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.9% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌1037.8% higher power demand at 512W vs 45W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1020M better than A4-3330MX?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3330MX is ahead with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1020M pulls ahead with 0.9% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1020M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1020M still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 1020M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.9% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 1020M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-3330MX vs Celeron 1020M Technical Specifications

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

A4-3330MX

The A4-3330MX 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 2.2 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): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,264 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron 1020M

The Celeron 1020M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,275 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3330MX and Celeron 1020M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A4-3330MX versus 2.1 GHz on the Celeron 1020M — a 21.3% clock advantage for the A4-3330MX (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The A4-3330MX uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 1020M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3330MX scores 1,264 against the Celeron 1020M's 1,275 — a 0.9% lead for the Celeron 1020M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3330MX vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1020M.

Feature	A4-3330MX	Celeron 1020M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+24%	2.1 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz+5%	2.1 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)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,264	1,275
Geekbench 6 Single	263	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3330MX uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1020M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3330MX versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1020M — the Celeron 1020M supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1020M 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	A4-3330MX	Celeron 1020M
Socket	FS1	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3-1600+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 (A4-3330MX) vs VT-x (Celeron 1020M). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3330MX) and HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1020M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3330MX targets Budget Laptop, Celeron 1020M targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-3330MX rivals Pentium B980; Celeron 1020M rivals Pentium 2020M.