A4 PRO-3340B vs Celeron G1630

A4 PRO-3340B vs Celeron G1630 Performance Spectrum

A4 PRO-3340B

4 / 4

1,709

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron G1630

2 / 2

1,707

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 PRO-3340B vs Celeron G1630 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 PRO-3340B vs Celeron G1630: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4 PRO-3340B

2014

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 25W instead of 55W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (200 vs 386).

Celeron G1630

2013

Why buy it

✅+93% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,707 vs 1,709).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while A4 PRO-3340B mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌120% higher power demand at 55W vs 25W.

Quick Answers

So, is A4 PRO-3340B better than Celeron G1630?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron G1630 is ahead with a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4 PRO-3340B pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4 PRO-3340B is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A4 PRO-3340B is still the much better call for a fresh build. A4 PRO-3340B comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. Celeron G1630 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (40.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1155.

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

A4 PRO-3340B 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 PRO-3340B vs Celeron G1630 Technical Specifications

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

A4 PRO-3340B

The A4 PRO-3340B is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 20 December 2014 (10 years ago). It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3/DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,709 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron G1630

The Celeron G1630 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,707 points. Launch price was $80.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4 PRO-3340B packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron G1630 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A4 PRO-3340B has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the A4 PRO-3340B versus 2.8 GHz on the Celeron G1630 — a 24% clock advantage for the Celeron G1630 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The A4 PRO-3340B uses the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron G1630 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4 PRO-3340B scores 1,709 against the Celeron G1630's 1,707 — a 0.1% lead for the A4 PRO-3340B. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 200 vs 386, a 63.5% lead for the Celeron G1630 that directly translates to higher frame rates.

Feature	A4 PRO-3340B	Celeron G1630
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	2.8 GHz+27%
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.8 GHz+27%
L3 Cache	—	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2048 kB+700%	256 kB (per core)
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Kabini (2013−2014)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,709	1,707
Geekbench 6 Single	200	386+93%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	635

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4 PRO-3340B uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G1630 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4 PRO-3340B versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron G1630 — the A4 PRO-3340B supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G1630 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4 PRO-3340B) vs 2 (Celeron G1630). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4 PRO-3340B) vs 16 (Celeron G1630) — the Celeron G1630 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4 PRO-3340B	Celeron G1630
Socket	FT3	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+20%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	32 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4 PRO-3340B) vs VT-x (Celeron G1630). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8240 (A4 PRO-3340B) and HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron G1630) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4 PRO-3340B targets Business Laptop, Celeron G1630 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4 PRO-3340B rivals Pentium N3520; Celeron G1630 rivals Pentium G2030.