A4-3400 vs Celeron N2820
A4-3400
Celeron N2820
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 A4-3400 is positioned at rank 850 and the Celeron N2820 is on rank 259, so the Celeron N2820 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar A4-3400
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N2820
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | A4-3400 | Celeron N2820 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | A4-3400 | Celeron N2820 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
Performance Check
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 A4-3400 and Celeron N2820
A4-3400
The A4-3400 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 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,066 points. Launch price was $50.
Celeron N2820
The Celeron N2820 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.39 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,061 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
Both the A4-3400 and Celeron N2820 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the A4-3400 versus 2.39 GHz on the Celeron N2820 — a 12.2% clock advantage for the A4-3400 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The A4-3400 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N2820 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3400 scores 1,066 against the Celeron N2820's 1,061 — a 0.5% lead for the A4-3400. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 349 vs 220, a 45.3% lead for the A4-3400 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | A4-3400 | Celeron N2820 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.7 GHz+13% | 2.39 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.7 GHz+27% | 2.13 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| Process | 32 nm | 22 nm-31% |
| Architecture | Llano (2011−2012) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| PassMark | 1,066 | 1,061 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 349+59% | 220 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 400 |
Memory & Platform
The A4-3400 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N2820 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The A4-3400 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3400) vs 4 (Celeron N2820) — the A4-3400 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A4-3400) and SoC (Celeron N2820).
| Feature | A4-3400 | Celeron N2820 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FM1 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1600 | DDR3L-1066 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+300% | 4 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3400) vs VT-x (Celeron N2820). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6410D (A4-3400) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2820) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop, Celeron N2820 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620; Celeron N2820 rivals AMD A6-6310.
| Feature | A4-3400 | Celeron N2820 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Radeon HD 6410D | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x |
| Target Use | Budget Desktop | Netbook |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on A4-3400 and Celeron N2820
