A6-9500E vs Celeron 3965U

A6-9500E vs Celeron 3965U Performance Spectrum

A6-9500E

2 / 2

1,741

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3965U

2 / 2

1,753

+0.7%

Celeron P4600

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

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.

A6-9500E vs Celeron 3965U 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.

A6-9500E vs Celeron 3965U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-9500E

2017

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,741 vs 1,753).
❌133.3% higher power demand at 35W vs 15W.

Celeron 3965U

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 15W instead of 35W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3965U better than A6-9500E?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-9500E is ahead with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3965U pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3965U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3965U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3965U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% better PassMark.

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

A6-9500E is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

A6-9500E vs Celeron 3965U Technical Specifications

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

A6-9500E

The A6-9500E 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 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 1,741 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron 3965U

The Celeron 3965U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake-U (2017) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1356. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,753 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-9500E and Celeron 3965U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the A6-9500E versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 3965U — a 42.9% clock advantage for the A6-9500E (base: 3 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The A6-9500E uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron 3965U uses Kaby Lake-U (2017) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9500E scores 1,741 against the Celeron 3965U's 1,753 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron 3965U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-9500E vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3965U.

Feature	A6-9500E	Celeron 3965U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz+55%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz+36%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1024 kB+300%	256K (per core)
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Kaby Lake-U (2017)
PassMark	1,741	1,753
Geekbench 6 Single	—	600
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,200

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9500E uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3965U uses BGA1356 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the A6-9500E versus DDR4-2133 on the Celeron 3965U — the A6-9500E supports 12.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 32 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-9500E) vs 10 (Celeron 3965U) — the Celeron 3965U offers 2 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM4 (A6-9500E) and SoC (Celeron 3965U).

Feature	A6-9500E	Celeron 3965U
Socket	AM4	BGA1356
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400+13%	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	10+25%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (A6-9500E) / VT-x (Celeron 3965U). Both include integrated graphics — AMD Radeon R5 (A6-9500E) and Intel HD Graphics 610 (Celeron 3965U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3965U targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron 3965U rivals Pentium Gold 4415U.