A6-3420M vs Celeron 5305U

A6-3420M vs Celeron 5305U Performance Spectrum

A6-3420M

4 / 4

1,310

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 5305U

2 / 2

1,307

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.

A6-3420M vs Celeron 5305U 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.

A6-3420M vs Celeron 5305U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-3420M

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (234 vs 480).
❌133.3% higher power demand at 35W vs 15W.

Celeron 5305U

2020

Why buy it

✅+105.1% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 15W instead of 35W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,307 vs 1,310).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 5305U better than A6-3420M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 5305U is ahead with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A6-3420M pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-3420M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron 5305U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 5305U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 5305U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-3420M vs Celeron 5305U Technical Specifications

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

A6-3420M

The A6-3420M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,310 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron 5305U

The Celeron 5305U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Comet Lake-U (2019−2020) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1528. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400, LPDDR3-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 1,307 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3420M packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 5305U offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3420M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the A6-3420M versus 2.3 GHz on the Celeron 5305U — a 4.3% clock advantage for the A6-3420M (base: 1.5 GHz vs 2.3 GHz). The A6-3420M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 5305U uses Comet Lake-U (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3420M scores 1,310 against the Celeron 5305U's 1,307 — a 0.2% lead for the A6-3420M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 234 vs 480, a 68.9% lead for the Celeron 5305U that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-3420M vs 2 MB on the Celeron 5305U.

Feature	A6-3420M	Celeron 5305U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+4%	2.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	2.3 GHz+53%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	—
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Comet Lake-U (2019−2020)
PassMark	1,310	1,307
Geekbench 6 Single	234	480+105%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	865

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3420M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 5305U uses FCBGA1528 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A6-3420M versus DDR4-2400 on the Celeron 5305U — the Celeron 5305U supports 80% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 5305U supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A6-3420M) vs 12 (Celeron 5305U) — the A6-3420M offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A6-3420M	Celeron 5305U
Socket	FS1	FCBGA1528
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR4-2400+80%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	64 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+33%	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A6-3420M) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 5305U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6520G (A6-3420M) and UHD Graphics (Comet Lake) (Celeron 5305U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3420M targets Budget Laptop, Celeron 5305U targets Budget. Direct competitor: A6-3420M rivals Core i3-2330M; Celeron 5305U rivals Pentium Gold 6405U.

Feature	A6-3420M	Celeron 5305U
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6520G	UHD Graphics (Comet Lake)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Budget Laptop	Budget