A6-9225 vs Celeron N2840

A6-9225 vs Celeron N2840 Performance Spectrum

A6-9225

2 / 2

1,334

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N2840

2 / 2

1,331

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.

A6-9225 vs Celeron N2840 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.

A6-9225 vs Celeron N2840: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-9225

2018

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 7W, a 6W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron N2840

2014

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,331 vs 1,334).
❌600% higher power demand at 7W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-9225 better than Celeron N2840?

Yes. A6-9225 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% 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, A6-9225 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, A6-9225 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?

A6-9225 still makes the most sense overall. A6-9225 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A6-9225 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2014) 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.

A6-9225 vs Celeron N2840 Technical Specifications

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

A6-9225

The A6-9225 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 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: BGA. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,334 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron N2840

The Celeron N2840 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.16 GHz, with boost up to 2.58 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,331 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-9225 and Celeron N2840 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the A6-9225 versus 2.58 GHz on the Celeron N2840 — a 18.3% clock advantage for the A6-9225 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2.16 GHz). The A6-9225 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron N2840 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9225 scores 1,334 against the Celeron N2840's 1,331 — a 0.2% lead for the A6-9225.

Feature	A6-9225	Celeron N2840
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz+20%	2.58 GHz
Base Clock	2.6 GHz+20%	2.16 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,334	1,331
Geekbench 6 Single	—	230
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	430

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9225 uses the BGA socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2840 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the A6-9225 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron N2840 — the A6-9225 supports 60% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (A6-9225) vs 2 (Celeron N2840). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-9225) vs 4 (Celeron N2840) — the A6-9225 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD BGA soldered (A6-9225) and SoC (Celeron N2840).

Feature	A6-9225	Celeron N2840
Socket	BGA	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+60%	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8+100%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (A6-9225) / VT-x (Celeron N2840). Both include integrated graphics — AMD Radeon R4 (A6-9225) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2840) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2840 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron N2840 rivals AMD A6-6310.