A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron N2815

A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron N2815 Performance Spectrum

A4 Micro-6400T

4 / 4

1,082

+1.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N2815

2 / 2

1,068

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 Micro-6400T vs Celeron N2815 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 N2815: 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

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌400% higher power demand at 5W vs 1W.

Celeron N2815

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 5W, a 4W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,068 vs 1,082).

Quick Answers

So, is A4 Micro-6400T better than Celeron N2815?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2815 is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4 Micro-6400T pulls ahead with 1.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4 Micro-6400T is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A4 Micro-6400T still makes the most sense overall. A4 Micro-6400T comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.3% better PassMark.

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

A4 Micro-6400T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron N2815 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 N2815

The Celeron N2815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 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 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,068 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4 Micro-6400T packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron N2815 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 2.13 GHz on the Celeron N2815 — a 28.4% clock advantage for the Celeron N2815 (base: 1 GHz vs 1.86 GHz). The A4 Micro-6400T uses the Mullins (2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron N2815 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4 Micro-6400T scores 1,082 against the Celeron N2815's 1,068 — a 1.3% lead for the A4 Micro-6400T.

Feature	A4 Micro-6400T	Celeron N2815
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.13 GHz+33%
Base Clock	1 GHz	1.86 GHz+86%
L3 Cache	—	1 MB
L2 Cache	2048 kB+100%	1 MB
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Mullins (2014)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,082+1%	1,068
Geekbench 6 Single	180	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4 Micro-6400T uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2815 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the A4 Micro-6400T versus 1066 on the Celeron N2815 — the A4 Micro-6400T supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (A4 Micro-6400T) vs 2 (Celeron N2815). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4 Micro-6400T) vs 4 (Celeron N2815) — the A4 Micro-6400T offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4 Micro-6400T	Celeron N2815
Socket	FT3	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333+25%	1066
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 Micro-6400T) vs true (Celeron N2815). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R3 (A4 Micro-6400T) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2815) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4 Micro-6400T targets Tablet. Direct competitor: A4 Micro-6400T rivals Atom Z3770; Celeron N2815 rivals AMD A4-1250.