A6-9400 vs Celeron G4950

A6-9400 vs Celeron G4950 Performance Spectrum

A6-9400

2 / 2

2,717

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron G4950

2 / 2

2,714

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.

A6-9400 vs Celeron G4950 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.

A6-9400 vs Celeron G4950: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-9400

2019

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌20.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 54W.

Celeron G4950

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 54W instead of 65W, a 11W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,714 vs 2,717).
❌Launch MSRP is still $52 MSRP, while A6-9400 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-9400 better than Celeron G4950?

Yes. A6-9400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.4% average FPS lead across 45 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% 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, A6-9400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.4% more average FPS across 45 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-9400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-9400 is still the better call for a fresh build. A6-9400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $52 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.4% average FPS lead across 45 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron G4950 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is so cheap, but its absolute performance tier is too low to be the better recommendation now. At roughly 2,714 PassMark with 2 cores and 2 threads, it only really makes sense as a bare-minimum stopgap or a very constrained existing-platform upgrade.

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

A6-9400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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.

A6-9400 vs Celeron G4950 Technical Specifications

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

A6-9400

The A6-9400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 2,717 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron G4950

The Celeron G4950 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 54 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 2,714 points. Launch price was $52.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-9400 and Celeron G4950 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the A6-9400 versus 3.3 GHz on the Celeron G4950 — a 11.4% clock advantage for the A6-9400 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The A6-9400 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron G4950 uses Coffee Lake (2017−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9400 scores 2,717 against the Celeron G4950's 2,714 — a 0.1% lead for the A6-9400.

Feature	A6-9400	Celeron G4950
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+12%	3.3 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz+3%	3.3 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)+100%	512 kB
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Coffee Lake (2017−2019)
PassMark	2,717	2,714
Geekbench 6 Single	—	672
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,229

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9400 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron G4950 uses LGA1151 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2400 memory speed. Both support up to 64 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-9400) vs 16 (Celeron G4950) — the Celeron G4950 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM4 (A6-9400) and H310,B360,B365,H370,Z370,Z390 (Celeron G4950).

Feature	A6-9400	Celeron G4950
Socket	AM4	LGA1151
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	DDR4-2400
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (A6-9400) / VT-x (Celeron G4950). Both include integrated graphics — AMD Radeon R5 (A6-9400) and UHD Graphics 610 (Celeron G4950) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G4950 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G4950 rivals Pentium G5420.