A4-9120C vs Celeron 3765U

A4-9120C vs Celeron 3765U Performance Spectrum

A4-9120C

2 / 2

1,258

+0.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3765U

2 / 2

1,252

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.

A4-9120C 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.

A4-9120C 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.

A4-9120C

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 512W, a 506W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Celeron 3765U

2015

Why buy it

✅50% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,252 vs 1,258).
❌8433.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-9120C better than Celeron 3765U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 3765U is ahead with a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4-9120C 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, A4-9120C 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?

A4-9120C still makes the most sense overall. A4-9120C 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?

A4-9120C makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2015) 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.

A4-9120C vs Celeron 3765U Technical Specifications

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

A4-9120C

The A4-9120C is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: BGA. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,258 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 A4-9120C and Celeron 3765U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the A4-9120C versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 3765U — a 17.1% clock advantage for the Celeron 3765U. The A4-9120C uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron 3765U uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-9120C scores 1,258 against the Celeron 3765U's 1,252 — a 0.5% lead for the A4-9120C.

Feature	A4-9120C	Celeron 3765U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	1.9 GHz+19%
Base Clock	—	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	1,258	1,252
Geekbench 6 Single	418	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-9120C uses the BGA socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3765U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-1866 on the A4-9120C versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3765U — the A4-9120C supports 16.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3765U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4-9120C) vs 2 (Celeron 3765U). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-9120C) vs 12 (Celeron 3765U) — the Celeron 3765U offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-9120C	Celeron 3765U
Socket	BGA	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-1866+17%	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	12+50%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-9120C) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3765U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R4 (A4-9120C) and HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3765U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-9120C targets Chromebook, Celeron 3765U targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-9120C rivals Celeron N3350; Celeron 3765U rivals Pentium 3825U.