A4-6300 vs Celeron 3867U

A4-6300 vs Celeron 3867U Performance Spectrum

A4-6300

2 / 2

1,436

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3867U

2 / 2

1,449

+0.9%

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.

A4-6300 vs Celeron 3867U 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.

A4-6300 vs Celeron 3867U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-6300

2013

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 3867U.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,436 vs 1,449).

Celeron 3867U

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.9% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-6300.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3867U better than A4-6300?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-6300 is ahead with a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3867U pulls ahead with 0.9% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3867U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3867U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3867U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.9% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 3867U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2013) 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.

A4-6300 vs Celeron 3867U Technical Specifications

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

A4-6300

The A4-6300 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 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,436 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron 3867U

The Celeron 3867U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1356. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,449 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-6300 and Celeron 3867U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the A4-6300 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 3867U — a 73.7% clock advantage for the A4-6300 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The A4-6300 uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 3867U uses Kaby Lake (2016−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-6300 scores 1,436 against the Celeron 3867U's 1,449 — a 0.9% lead for the Celeron 3867U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-6300 vs 2 MB on the Celeron 3867U.

Feature	A4-6300	Celeron 3867U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz+117%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+106%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	1024 kB+100%	512 kB
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)
PassMark	1,436	1,449
Geekbench 6 Single	373	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-6300 uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3867U uses BGA1356 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-6300 versus DDR4-2133 on the Celeron 3867U — the Celeron 3867U supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 32 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-6300) vs 12 (Celeron 3867U) — the A4-6300 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A58,A68H,A75,A78,A88X (A4-6300) and Kaby Lake-U (Celeron 3867U).

Feature	A4-6300	Celeron 3867U
Socket	FM2	BGA1356
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR4-2133+33%
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+33%	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-6300) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3867U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8370D (A4-6300) and HD Graphics 610 (Celeron 3867U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-6300 targets Budget Desktop, Celeron 3867U targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-6300 rivals Pentium G3220; Celeron 3867U rivals Pentium Gold 4417U.