A4-5300B vs Celeron 3765U

A4-5300B vs Celeron 3765U Performance Spectrum

A4-5300B

2 / 2

1,246

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3765U

2 / 2

1,252

+0.5%

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.

A4-5300B vs Celeron 3765U 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.

A4-5300B vs Celeron 3765U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-5300B

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron 3765U.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,246 vs 1,252).

Celeron 3765U

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-5300B.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3765U better than A4-5300B?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-5300B is ahead with a 2.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3765U pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3765U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3765U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3765U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.5% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 3765U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2012) 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.

A4-5300B vs Celeron 3765U Technical Specifications

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

A4-5300B

The A4-5300B is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 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: 1,246 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron 3765U

The Celeron 3765U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) 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. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,252 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-5300B and Celeron 3765U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.6 GHz on the A4-5300B versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 3765U — a 61.8% clock advantage for the A4-5300B (base: 3.4 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The A4-5300B uses the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 3765U uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-5300B scores 1,246 against the Celeron 3765U's 1,252 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron 3765U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-5300B vs 2 MB on the Celeron 3765U.

Feature	A4-5300B	Celeron 3765U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.6 GHz+89%	1.9 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz+79%	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+100%	512 kB
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Trinity (2012−2013)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	1,246	1,252
Geekbench 6 Single	428	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-5300B uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 3765U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The A4-5300B 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. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-5300B) vs 12 (Celeron 3765U) — the A4-5300B offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75,A85X (A4-5300B) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3765U).

Feature	A4-5300B	Celeron 3765U
Socket	FM2	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+100%	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+33%	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-5300B) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3765U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 7480D (A4-5300B) and HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3765U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-5300B targets Business Desktop, Celeron 3765U targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-5300B rivals Pentium G2020; Celeron 3765U rivals Pentium 3825U.

Feature	A4-5300B	Celeron 3765U
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 7480D	HD Graphics (Broadwell)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Business Desktop	Budget