A6-9210 vs Celeron 3765U

A6-9210 vs Celeron 3765U Performance Spectrum

A6-9210

2 / 2

1,254

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3765U

2 / 2

1,252

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.

A6-9210 vs Celeron 3765U 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.

A6-9210 vs Celeron 3765U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-9210

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 512W, a 497W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Celeron 3765U

2015

Why buy it

✅50% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,252 vs 1,254).
❌3313.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-9210 better than Celeron 3765U?

Yes. A6-9210 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A6-9210 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-9210 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-9210 still makes the most sense overall. A6-9210 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A6-9210 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2015) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-9210 vs Celeron 3765U Technical Specifications

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

A6-9210

The A6-9210 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP4. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 1,254 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron 3765U

The Celeron 3765U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,252 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-9210 and Celeron 3765U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the A6-9210 versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 3765U — a 38.3% clock advantage for the A6-9210 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The A6-9210 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron 3765U uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9210 scores 1,254 against the Celeron 3765U's 1,252 — a 0.2% lead for the A6-9210.

Feature	A6-9210	Celeron 3765U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+47%	1.9 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+26%	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB
L2 Cache	1024 kB+100%	512 kB
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	1,254	1,252

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9210 uses the FP4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3765U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the A6-9210 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3765U — the A6-9210 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (A6-9210) vs 2 (Celeron 3765U). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-9210) vs 12 (Celeron 3765U) — the Celeron 3765U offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD BGA soldered (A6-9210) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3765U).

Feature	A6-9210	Celeron 3765U
Socket	FP4	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+33%	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	12+50%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (A6-9210) / VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3765U). Both include integrated graphics — AMD Radeon R4 (A6-9210) and HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3765U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3765U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3765U rivals Pentium 3825U.