A8-3520M vs Celeron N2805

A8-3520M vs Celeron N2805 Performance Spectrum

A8-3520M

4 / 4

1,441

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N2805

2 / 2

1,430

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.

A8-3520M vs Celeron N2805 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.

A8-3520M vs Celeron N2805: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A8-3520M

2011

Why buy it

✅400% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌775% higher power demand at 35W vs 4W.

Celeron N2805

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 35W, a 31W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,430 vs 1,441).

Quick Answers

So, is A8-3520M better than Celeron N2805?

Yes. A8-3520M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A8-3520M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.7% 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, A8-3520M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A8-3520M still makes the most sense overall. A8-3520M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N2805 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A8-3520M vs Celeron N2805 Technical Specifications

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

A8-3520M

The A8-3520M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,441 points. Launch price was $90.

Celeron N2805

The Celeron N2805 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.46 GHz, with boost up to 1.46 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.3 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,430 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The A8-3520M packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron N2805 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A8-3520M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A8-3520M versus 1.46 GHz on the Celeron N2805 — a 52.5% clock advantage for the A8-3520M (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.46 GHz). The A8-3520M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N2805 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A8-3520M scores 1,441 against the Celeron N2805's 1,430 — a 0.8% lead for the A8-3520M. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A8-3520M	Celeron N2805
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+71%	1.46 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz+10%	1.46 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,441	1,430
Geekbench 6 Single	255	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A8-3520M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N2805 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A8-3520M versus 1066 on the Celeron N2805 — the A8-3520M supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A8-3520M supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (A8-3520M) vs 1 (Celeron N2805). PCIe lanes: 20 (A8-3520M) vs 4 (Celeron N2805) — the A8-3520M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A8-3520M	Celeron N2805
Socket	FS1	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+25%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	20+400%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A8-3520M) vs true (Celeron N2805). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6620G (A8-3520M) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2805) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A8-3520M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A8-3520M rivals Core i3-2330M; Celeron N2805 rivals AMD E1-2100.