A6-3620 vs Celeron M P4600

A6-3620 vs Celeron M P4600 Performance Spectrum

A6-3620

4 / 4

1,877

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron M P4600

2 / 2

1,886

+0.5%

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.

A6-3620 vs Celeron M P4600 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.

A6-3620 vs Celeron M P4600: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-3620

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6530D, while Celeron M P4600 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron M P4600.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,877 vs 1,886).

Celeron M P4600

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A6-3620 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while A6-3620 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-3620 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-3620.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-3620 better than Celeron M P4600?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-3620 is ahead with a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M P4600 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M P4600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-3620 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A6-3620 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M P4600 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (21.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

A6-3620 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-3620 vs Celeron M P4600 Technical Specifications

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

A6-3620

The A6-3620 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 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 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: 1,877 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron M P4600

The Celeron M P4600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 October 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,886 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3620 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron M P4600 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3620 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A6-3620 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron M P4600 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the A6-3620. The A6-3620 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron M P4600 uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3620 scores 1,877 against the Celeron M P4600's 1,886 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron M P4600. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-3620 vs 2 MB on the Celeron M P4600.

Feature	A6-3620	Celeron M P4600
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+25%	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+100%	512 kB
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,877	1,886
Geekbench 6 Single	300	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3620 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron M P4600 uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-3620	Celeron M P4600
Socket	FM1	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-3620) / not specified (Celeron M P4600). The A6-3620 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6530D), while the Celeron M P4600 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3620 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A6-3620 rivals Pentium G840.