A6-1450 vs Celeron N2820

A6-1450 vs Celeron N2820 Performance Spectrum

A6-1450

4 / 4

1,062

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N2820

2 / 2

1,061

0.0%

Core Duo T2050

Celeron N3000

Celeron J1800

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

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.

A6-1450 vs Celeron N2820 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.

A6-1450 vs Celeron N2820: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-1450

2013

Why buy it

✅+12.5% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (144 vs 220).

Celeron N2820

2013

Why buy it

✅+52.8% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 7W instead of 8W, a 1W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (400 vs 450).

Quick Answers

So, is A6-1450 better than Celeron N2820?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2820 is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A6-1450 pulls ahead with 12.5% better Geekbench multi-core.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-1450 is the stronger fit. You are getting 12.5% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-1450 still makes the most sense overall. A6-1450 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 12.5% better Geekbench multi-core.

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

A6-1450 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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.

A6-1450 vs Celeron N2820 Technical Specifications

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

A6-1450

The A6-1450 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Temash (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,062 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron N2820

The Celeron N2820 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 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.39 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,061 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-1450 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron N2820 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-1450 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the A6-1450 versus 2.39 GHz on the Celeron N2820 — a 52.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N2820 (base: 1 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The A6-1450 uses the Temash (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N2820 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A6-1450 scores 1,062 against the Celeron N2820's 1,061 — a 0.1% lead for the A6-1450. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 144 vs 220, a 41.8% lead for the Celeron N2820 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 450 vs 400 (11.8% advantage for the A6-1450). Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A6-1450	Celeron N2820
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	2.39 GHz+71%
Base Clock	1 GHz	2.13 GHz+113%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512K (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Temash (2013)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,062	1,061
Geekbench 6 Single	144	220+53%
Geekbench 6 Multi	450+13%	400

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-1450 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2820 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1066 memory speed. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (A6-1450) vs 2 (Celeron N2820). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-1450) vs 4 (Celeron N2820) — the A6-1450 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (A6-1450) and SoC (Celeron N2820).

Feature	A6-1450	Celeron N2820
Socket	FT3	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	DDR3L-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 (A6-1450) vs VT-x (Celeron N2820). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8250 (A6-1450) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2820) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-1450 targets Low Power Tablet/Laptop, Celeron N2820 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: A6-1450 rivals Atom Z3740; Celeron N2820 rivals AMD A6-6310.

Feature	A6-1450	Celeron N2820
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 8250	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x
Target Use	Low Power Tablet/Laptop	Netbook