A4-3330MX vs Celeron N3060

A4-3330MX vs Celeron N3060 Performance Spectrum

A4-3330MX

2 / 2

1,264

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N3060

2 / 2

1,267

+0.2%

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 N3060 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 N3060: 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

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,264 vs 1,267).
❌650% higher power demand at 45W vs 6W.

Celeron N3060

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 45W, a 39W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $107 MSRP, while A4-3330MX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3060 better than A4-3330MX?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3330MX 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 N3060 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, Celeron N3060 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?

Celeron N3060 is the better buy right now. Celeron N3060 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $107 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that A4-3330MX is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron N3060 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 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 N3060 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 N3060

The Celeron N3060 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 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.48 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,267 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3330MX and Celeron N3060 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A4-3330MX versus 2.48 GHz on the Celeron N3060 — a 4.7% clock advantage for the A4-3330MX (base: 2.2 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The A4-3330MX uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N3060 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3330MX scores 1,264 against the Celeron N3060's 1,267 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron N3060. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-3330MX	Celeron N3060
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+5%	2.48 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz+38%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,264	1,267
Geekbench 6 Single	263	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3330MX uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3060 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3330MX versus 1600 on the Celeron N3060 — the Celeron N3060 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3330MX 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 (A4-3330MX) vs 4 (Celeron N3060) — the A4-3330MX offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-3330MX	Celeron N3060
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 (A4-3330MX) vs true (Celeron N3060). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3330MX) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3060) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3330MX targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3330MX rivals Pentium B980; Celeron N3060 rivals AMD E2-9010.