A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 3215U

A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 3215U Performance Spectrum

A4 Micro-6400T

4 / 4

1,082

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3215U

2 / 2

1,091

+0.8%

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 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 3215U 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 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 3215U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4 Micro-6400T

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 5W instead of 512W, a 507W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (180 vs 339).
❌Lower PassMark (1,082 vs 1,091).

Celeron 3215U

2015

Why buy it

✅+88.3% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅50% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌10140% higher power demand at 512W vs 5W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3215U better than A4 Micro-6400T?

Yes. Celeron 3215U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.8% 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, Celeron 3215U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.6% 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, Celeron 3215U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3215U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3215U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 3215U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2014) 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 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 3215U Technical Specifications

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

A4 Micro-6400T

The A4 Micro-6400T is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 April 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Mullins (2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 1,082 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron 3215U

The Celeron 3215U 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 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 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: 1,091 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4 Micro-6400T packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 3215U offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A4 Micro-6400T has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the A4 Micro-6400T versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3215U — a 6.1% clock advantage for the Celeron 3215U (base: 1 GHz vs 1.7 GHz). The A4 Micro-6400T uses the Mullins (2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron 3215U uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A4 Micro-6400T scores 1,082 against the Celeron 3215U's 1,091 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron 3215U. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 180 vs 339, a 61.3% lead for the Celeron 3215U that directly translates to higher frame rates.

Feature	A4 Micro-6400T	Celeron 3215U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	1.7 GHz+6%
Base Clock	1 GHz	1.7 GHz+70%
L3 Cache	—	2 MB
L2 Cache	2048 kB+300%	512 kB
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Mullins (2014)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	1,082	1,091
Geekbench 6 Single	180	339+88%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4 Micro-6400T uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3215U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the A4 Micro-6400T versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3215U — the Celeron 3215U supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3215U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4 Micro-6400T) vs 2 (Celeron 3215U). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4 Micro-6400T) vs 12 (Celeron 3215U) — the Celeron 3215U offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4 Micro-6400T	Celeron 3215U
Socket	FT3	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	DDR3L-1600+20%
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 Micro-6400T) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3215U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R3 (A4 Micro-6400T) and HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3215U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4 Micro-6400T targets Tablet, Celeron 3215U targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4 Micro-6400T rivals Atom Z3770; Celeron 3215U rivals Pentium 3825U.