A4-4000 vs Celeron E3300
A4-4000
Celeron E3300
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 A4-4000 is positioned at rank 811 and the Celeron E3300 is on rank 724, so the Celeron E3300 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar A4-4000
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E3300
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | A4-4000 | Celeron E3300 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Richland (2013−2014) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Wolfdale (2008−2010) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | A4-4000 | Celeron E3300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
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 A4-4000 and Celeron E3300
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. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. The A4-4000 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 120% 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 | DDR3-1066 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB+300% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| 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.
| Feature | A4-4000 | Celeron E3300 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon HD 7480D | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x |
| Target Use | Budget Desktop | Budget |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on A4-4000 and Celeron E3300
