A4-6320 vs Celeron N4020

A4-6320 vs Celeron N4020 Performance Spectrum

A4-6320

2 / 2

1,532

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N4020

2 / 2

1,535

+0.2%

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.

A4-6320 vs Celeron N4020 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.

A4-6320 vs Celeron N4020: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-6320

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8370D, while Celeron N4020 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron N4020.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,532 vs 1,535).
❌1525% higher power demand at 65W vs 4W.

Celeron N4020

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 65W, a 61W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A4-6320 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-6320 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-6320.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N4020 better than A4-6320?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-6320 is ahead with a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N4020 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N4020 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N4020 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N4020 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N4020 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.

A4-6320 vs Celeron N4020 Technical Specifications

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

A4-6320

The A4-6320 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 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. 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: 1,532 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron N4020

The Celeron N4020 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,535 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-6320 and Celeron N4020 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the A4-6320 versus 2.8 GHz on the Celeron N4020 — a 35.3% clock advantage for the A4-6320 (base: 3.8 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The A4-6320 uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N4020 uses Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-6320 scores 1,532 against the Celeron N4020's 1,535 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron N4020.

Feature	A4-6320	Celeron N4020
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	4 GHz+43%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.8 GHz+245%	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	—	4 MB
L2 Cache	1024 kB	4 MB+300%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Gemini Lake Refresh (2019)
PassMark	1,532	1,535
Geekbench 6 Single	433	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-6320 uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N4020 uses FCBGA1090 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A4-6320	Celeron N4020
Socket	FM2	FCBGA1090
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-6320) / not specified (Celeron N4020). The A4-6320 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8370D), while the Celeron N4020 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-6320 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-6320 rivals Pentium G3250.