A6-9210 vs Celeron J3160

A6-9210 vs Celeron J3160 Performance Spectrum

A6-9210

2 / 2

1,254

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron J3160

4 / 4

1,250

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 J3160 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 J3160: 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

✅100% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌150% higher power demand at 15W vs 6W.

Celeron J3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 15W, a 9W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,250 vs 1,254).

Quick Answers

So, is A6-9210 better than Celeron J3160?

Yes. A6-9210 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.3% better PassMark, 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 0.2% 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 0.3% 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 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J3160 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

A6-9210 vs Celeron J3160 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 J3160

The Celeron J3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,250 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-9210 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron J3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron J3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the A6-9210 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron J3160 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the A6-9210 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The A6-9210 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron J3160 uses Airmont (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9210 scores 1,254 against the Celeron J3160's 1,250 — a 0.3% lead for the A6-9210.

Feature	A6-9210	Celeron J3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+25%	2.24 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+50%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1024 kB	2 MB+100%
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Airmont (2016)
PassMark	1,254	1,250
Geekbench 6 Single	—	350
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	650

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9210 uses the FP4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron J3160 uses FCBGA1170 (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 J3160 — the A6-9210 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-9210 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A6-9210) vs 2 (Celeron J3160). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-9210) vs 4 (Celeron J3160) — the A6-9210 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD BGA soldered (A6-9210) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J3160).

Feature	A6-9210	Celeron J3160
Socket	FP4	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+33%	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8+100%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (A6-9210) / VT-x (Celeron J3160). Both include integrated graphics — AMD Radeon R4 (A6-9210) and HD Graphics 400 (Celeron J3160) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3160 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J3160 rivals Pentium J3710.