A6-3500 vs Celeron N4000C

A6-3500 vs Celeron N4000C Performance Spectrum

A6-3500

3 / 3

1,439

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N4000C

2 / 2

1,430

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.

A6-3500 vs Celeron N4000C 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.

A6-3500 vs Celeron N4000C: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-3500

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6530D, while Celeron N4000C needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron N4000C.

Trade-offs

❌983.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 6W.

Celeron N4000C

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 65W, a 59W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,430 vs 1,439).
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-3500 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-3500.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N4000C better than A6-3500?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N4000C 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, A6-3500 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-3500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 3 cores and 3 threads.

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

Celeron N4000C still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N4000C 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 N4000C makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-3500 vs Celeron N4000C Technical Specifications

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

A6-3500

The A6-3500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 3 cores and 3 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 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: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,439 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron N4000C

The Celeron N4000C is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4/LPDDR4 up to 2400 MT/s. Passmark benchmark score: 1,430 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3500 packs 3 cores / 3 threads, while the Celeron N4000C offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3500 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the A6-3500 versus 2.6 GHz on the Celeron N4000C — a 8% clock advantage for the Celeron N4000C (base: 2.1 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The A6-3500 is built on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. In PassMark, the A6-3500 scores 1,439 against the Celeron N4000C's 1,430 — a 0.6% lead for the A6-3500. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-3500 vs 4 MB on the Celeron N4000C.

Feature	A6-3500	Celeron N4000C
Cores / Threads	3 / 3+50%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.6 GHz+8%
Base Clock	2.1 GHz+91%	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	—
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	—
PassMark	1,439	1,430
Geekbench 6 Single	265	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3500 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N4000C uses FCBGA1090 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-3500	Celeron N4000C
Socket	FM1	FCBGA1090
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-3500) / not specified (Celeron N4000C). The A6-3500 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6530D), while the Celeron N4000C requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3500 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A6-3500 rivals Pentium G620.