A4-9120C vs Celeron J3160

A4-9120C vs Celeron J3160 Performance Spectrum

A4-9120C

2 / 2

1,258

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron J3160

4 / 4

1,250

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 J3160 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 J3160: 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

✅+19.4% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron J3160

2016

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (350 vs 418).
❌Lower PassMark (1,250 vs 1,258).

Quick Answers

So, is A4-9120C better than Celeron J3160?

Yes. A4-9120C is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% 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, A4-9120C is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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, A4-9120C 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?

A4-9120C 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 a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-9120C vs Celeron J3160 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 J3160

The Celeron J3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,250 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-9120C packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron J3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron J3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the A4-9120C versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron J3160 — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Celeron J3160. The A4-9120C uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron J3160 uses Airmont (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4-9120C scores 1,258 against the Celeron J3160's 1,250 — a 0.6% lead for the A4-9120C. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 418 vs 350, a 17.7% lead for the A4-9120C that directly translates to higher frame rates.

Feature	A4-9120C	Celeron J3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.24 GHz+40%
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Airmont (2016)
PassMark	1,258	1,250
Geekbench 6 Single	418+19%	350
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	650

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-9120C uses the BGA socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron J3160 uses FCBGA1170 (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 J3160 — the A4-9120C supports 16.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (A4-9120C) vs 2 (Celeron J3160). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-9120C) vs 4 (Celeron J3160) — the A4-9120C offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-9120C	Celeron J3160
Socket	BGA	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-1866+17%	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8+100%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-9120C) vs VT-x (Celeron J3160). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R4 (A4-9120C) and HD Graphics 400 (Celeron J3160) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-9120C targets Chromebook, Celeron J3160 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: A4-9120C rivals Celeron N3350; Celeron J3160 rivals Pentium J3710.