A4-6300 vs Celeron N2805

A4-6300 vs Celeron N2805 Performance Spectrum

A4-6300

2 / 2

1,436

+0.4%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N2805

2 / 2

1,430

0.0%

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 N2805 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 N2805: 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

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron N2805.

Trade-offs

❌1525% higher power demand at 65W vs 4W.

Celeron N2805

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 65W, a 61W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,430 vs 1,436).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-6300.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-6300 better than Celeron N2805?

Yes. A4-6300 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A4-6300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4-6300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-6300 still makes the most sense overall. A4-6300 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?

A4-6300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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 N2805 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 N2805

The Celeron N2805 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.46 GHz, with boost up to 1.46 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.3 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,430 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-6300 and Celeron N2805 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the A4-6300 versus 1.46 GHz on the Celeron N2805 — a 91% clock advantage for the A4-6300 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 1.46 GHz). The A4-6300 uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N2805 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-6300 scores 1,436 against the Celeron N2805's 1,430 — a 0.4% lead for the A4-6300. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A4-6300	Celeron N2805
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz+167%	1.46 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+153%	1.46 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1024 kB+100%	512K (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,436	1,430
Geekbench 6 Single	373	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-6300 uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2805 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-6300 versus 1066 on the Celeron N2805 — the A4-6300 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-6300 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (A4-6300) vs 1 (Celeron N2805). PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-6300) vs 4 (Celeron N2805) — the A4-6300 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A58,A68H,A75,A78,A88X (A4-6300) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2805).

Feature	A4-6300	Celeron N2805
Socket	FM2	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+50%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+700%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-6300) vs true (Celeron N2805). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8370D (A4-6300) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2805) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-6300 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-6300 rivals Pentium G3220; Celeron N2805 rivals AMD E1-2100.