A4-3420 vs Celeron B840

CPU

GPU

A4-3420

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 2.8 GHz2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron B840

2 Cores2 Thrd0 WWMax: 1.9 GHz2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

A4-3420 vs Celeron B840 Performance Spectrum

A4-3420

2 / 2

1,067

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron B840

2 / 2

1,065

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.

A4-3420 vs Celeron B840 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.

A4-3420 vs Celeron B840: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3420

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $21 less on MSRP ($65 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Delivers 32.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.4 vs 12.4 PassMark/$ ($65 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock), unlike Celeron B840.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (300 vs 450).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (500 vs 790).

Celeron B840

2011

Why buy it

✅+50% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.4 vs 16.4 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $65 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3420.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B840 better than A4-3420?

Yes. Celeron B840 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 58% better Geekbench multi-core, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron B840 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron B840 is the stronger fit. You are getting 58% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron B840 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron B840 comes in 32.3% more expensive on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $65 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. A4-3420 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 32.6% better value on paper (16.4 vs 12.4 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on FM1.

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

Celeron B840 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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.

A4-3420 vs Celeron B840 Technical Specifications

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

A4-3420

The A4-3420 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 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 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: 1,067 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron B840

The Celeron B840 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,065 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3420 and Celeron B840 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the A4-3420 versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron B840 — a 38.3% clock advantage for the A4-3420 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The A4-3420 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron B840 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3420 scores 1,067 against the Celeron B840's 1,065 — a 0.2% lead for the A4-3420. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 300 vs 450, a 40% lead for the Celeron B840 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 500 vs 790 (45% advantage for the Celeron B840). L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3420 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B840.

Feature	A4-3420	Celeron B840
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+47%	1.9 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz+47%	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,067	1,065
Geekbench 6 Single	300	450+50%
Geekbench 6 Multi	500	790+58%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3420 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron B840 uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-3420 versus 1333 on the Celeron B840 — the A4-3420 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3420 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. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75,A85X (A4-3420) and HM65,HM67,QM67 (Celeron B840).

Feature	A4-3420	Celeron B840
Socket	FM1	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+20%	1333
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+100%	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3420) vs true (Celeron B840). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6410D (A4-3420) and Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron B840) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3420 targets Entry Desktop, Celeron B840 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-3420 rivals Pentium G630; Celeron B840 rivals Pentium B940.

Feature	A4-3420	Celeron B840
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6410D	Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	true
Target Use	Entry Desktop	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the A4-3420 was priced at $65, while the Celeron B840 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($65 vs $86), A4-3420 was $21 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A4-3420 delivers 16.4 pts/$ vs 12.4 pts/$ for the Celeron B840 — making the A4-3420 the 28% better value option.

Feature	A4-3420	Celeron B840
MSRP	$65-24%	$86
Performance per Dollar	16.4+32%	12.4
Release Date	2011	2011

Search A4-3420 on Amazon

Search Celeron B840 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.