A4-6210 vs Celeron 1017U

A4-6210 vs Celeron 1017U Performance Spectrum

A4-6210

4 / 4

1,499

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 1017U

2 / 2

1,508

+0.6%

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.

A4-6210 vs Celeron 1017U 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.

A4-6210 vs Celeron 1017U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-6210

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 512W, a 497W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,499 vs 1,508).

Celeron 1017U

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌3313.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-6210 better than Celeron 1017U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-6210 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 1017U pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1017U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-6210 still makes the most sense overall. A4-6210 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A4-6210 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-6210 vs Celeron 1017U Technical Specifications

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

A4-6210

The A4-6210 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Beema (2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1599. Passmark benchmark score: 1,499 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron 1017U

The Celeron 1017U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,508 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-6210 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 1017U offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A4-6210 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the A4-6210 versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 1017U — a 11.8% clock advantage for the A4-6210. The A4-6210 uses the Beema (2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron 1017U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-6210 scores 1,499 against the Celeron 1017U's 1,508 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron 1017U.

Feature	A4-6210	Celeron 1017U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz+12%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB
L2 Cache	2048 kB+300%	512 kB
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Beema (2014)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,499	1,508
Geekbench 6 Single	198	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-6210 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 1017U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1600 memory speed. The Celeron 1017U supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4-6210) vs 2 (Celeron 1017U). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-6210) vs 16 (Celeron 1017U) — the Celeron 1017U offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-6210	Celeron 1017U
Socket	FT3	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	32 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-6210) / not specified (Celeron 1017U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R3 (A4-6210) and Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1017U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-6210 targets Entry Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-6210 rivals Pentium N3700.