A4-4000 vs Celeron E3300

A4-4000 vs Celeron E3300 Performance Spectrum

A4-4000

2 / 2

1,152

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron E3300

2 / 2

1,155

+0.3%

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.

A4-4000 vs Celeron E3300 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.

A4-4000 vs Celeron E3300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-4000

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 7480D, while Celeron E3300 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron E3300.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,152 vs 1,155).

Celeron E3300

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (347 vs 348).
❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while A4-4000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-4000 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-4000.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E3300 better than A4-4000?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-4000 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 E3300 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron E3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron E3300 is the better buy right now. Celeron E3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $50 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that A4-4000 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (23.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A4-4000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-4000 vs Celeron E3300 Technical Specifications

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

A4-4000

The A4-4000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Richland (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,152 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron E3300

The Celeron E3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,155 points. Launch price was $70.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-4000 and Celeron E3300 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the A4-4000 versus 2.5 GHz on the Celeron E3300 — a 24.6% clock advantage for the A4-4000 (base: 3 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The A4-4000 uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron E3300 uses Wolfdale (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A4-4000 scores 1,152 against the Celeron E3300's 1,155 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron E3300. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 348 vs 347, a 0.3% lead for the A4-4000 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-4000	Celeron E3300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz+28%	2.5 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz+20%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (total)
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Wolfdale (2008−2010)
PassMark	1,152	1,155
Geekbench 6 Single	348	347
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	624

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-4000 uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron E3300 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-4000 versus DDR3-1066 on the Celeron E3300 — the A4-4000 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-4000 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-4000) vs 0 (Celeron E3300) — the A4-4000 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75,A85X,A88X (A4-4000) and G31,G41,P45 (Celeron E3300).

Feature	A4-4000	Celeron E3300
Socket	FM2	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+25%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-4000) vs VT-x (Celeron E3300). The A4-4000 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 7480D), while the Celeron E3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-4000 targets Budget Desktop, Celeron E3300 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-4000 rivals Celeron G1610; Celeron E3300 rivals Pentium E5200.