A6-3430MX vs Celeron 1020E

A6-3430MX vs Celeron 1020E Performance Spectrum

A6-3430MX

4 / 4

1,389

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 1020E

2 / 2

1,406

+1.2%

Celeron B820

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

Pentium E5700

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300

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.

A6-3430MX vs Celeron 1020E 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.

A6-3430MX vs Celeron 1020E: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-3430MX

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 45W instead of 512W, a 467W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,389 vs 1,406).

Celeron 1020E

2013

Why buy it

✅+1.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while A6-3430MX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1037.8% higher power demand at 512W vs 45W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1020E better than A6-3430MX?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-3430MX is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1020E pulls ahead with 1.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1020E is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1020E is the better buy right now. Celeron 1020E comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that A6-3430MX is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (16.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 1020E makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) 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.

A6-3430MX vs Celeron 1020E Technical Specifications

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

A6-3430MX

The A6-3430MX 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 1.7 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): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,389 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron 1020E

The Celeron 1020E is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: G2. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,406 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3430MX packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 1020E offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3430MX has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the A6-3430MX versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 1020E — a 8.7% clock advantage for the A6-3430MX (base: 1.7 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The A6-3430MX uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 1020E uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3430MX scores 1,389 against the Celeron 1020E's 1,406 — a 1.2% lead for the Celeron 1020E. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-3430MX vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1020E.

Feature	A6-3430MX	Celeron 1020E
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+9%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	2.2 GHz+29%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,389	1,406+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	254	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3430MX uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1020E uses G2 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The Celeron 1020E supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes.

Feature	A6-3430MX	Celeron 1020E
Socket	FS1	G2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A6-3430MX) vs VT-x (Celeron 1020E). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6520G (A6-3430MX) and HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1020E) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3430MX targets Budget Laptop, Celeron 1020E targets Budget. Direct competitor: A6-3430MX rivals Core i3-2350M; Celeron 1020E rivals Pentium 2020M.