Celeron 5205U
VS
A4-6300

Celeron 5205U vs A4-6300

Intel

Celeron 5205U

2 Cores2 Thrd15 WWMax: 1.9 GHz2019
VS
AMD

A4-6300

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2013

Performance Spectrum - CPU

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron 5205U is positioned at rank 1231 and the A4-6300 is on rank 708, so the A4-6300 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 5205U

#1218
Atom x5-Z8300
MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A
8811%
#1219
Atom Z3735G
MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A
8682%
#1220
Core i5-480M
MSRP: $81|Avg: $77
7970%
#1221
Core i5-460M
MSRP: $80|Avg: $129
7934%
#1222
Core i5-2540M
MSRP: $266|Avg: $10
7861%
#1224
Core i5-450M
MSRP: $32|Avg: $31
7592%
#1225
Core i3-380M
MSRP: $49|Avg: $25
7279%
#1226
Core i5-430M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33
7267%
#1227
Core 2 Duo T6600
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4
7072%
#1230
Core i7-820QM
MSRP: $546|Avg: N/A
100%
#1231
Celeron 5205U
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#1232
Core Duo T2700
MSRP: $663|Avg: N/A
84%
#1234
Pentium SU4100
MSRP: $289|Avg: $15
71%
#1235
Core Solo T1400
MSRP: $200|Avg: $5
64%
#1236
Core i7-940XM
MSRP: $1096|Avg: N/A
62%
#1237
Core Solo T1350
MSRP: $200|Avg: $70
61%
#1239
Core Solo T1300
MSRP: $209|Avg: $10
55%
#1240
Core Solo T1200
MSRP: $209|Avg: $10
51%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar A4-6300

#1
Ryzen 9 7950X
MSRP: $194|Avg: $20
13026%
#2
Core i9-10900T
MSRP: $120|Avg: $5
12308%
#3
Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE
MSRP: $423|Avg: $5
8937%
#4
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85
2692%
#5
Ryzen 9 9950X
MSRP: $649|Avg: $129
2133%
#6
Ryzen 5 8400F
MSRP: $303|Avg: $55
1866%
#7
Ryzen 7 PRO 2700
MSRP: $299|Avg: $60
1069%
#8
Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP: $229|Avg: $55
1055%
#9
Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G
MSRP: $150|Avg: $60
960%
#10
Core Ultra 5 245KF
MSRP: $294|Avg: $189
960%
#11
Ryzen 5 5500
MSRP: $159|Avg: $85
949%
#12
Ryzen 5 3600
MSRP: $199|Avg: $80
924%
#13
Core i3-9100E
MSRP: $202|Avg: $30
911%
#14
Core Ultra 5 245K
MSRP: $319|Avg: $200
907%
#15
Core i3-8300T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $25
899%
#391
Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX
MSRP: $1299|Avg: $1300
99%
#708
A4-6300
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#709
Core i3-4360T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $40
100%
#711
Core i5-3470S
MSRP: $184|Avg: $37
99%
#712
Core i5-4670T
MSRP: $189|Avg: $35
99%
#713
Core i5-2400S
MSRP: $135|Avg: $10
99%
#714
Pentium G3420
MSRP: $86|Avg: $40
98%
#715
Core i5-6500
MSRP: $239|Avg: $123
98%
#716
Core i3-4340
MSRP: $149|Avg: $50
98%
#717
Core i7-4770T
MSRP: $250|Avg: $39
98%
#718
Core i5-4690K
MSRP: $243|Avg: $101
98%
#719
Core i5-4670R
MSRP: $224|Avg: $29
98%
#720
Core i5-3340
MSRP: $182|Avg: $15
98%
#721
Core i7-4770
MSRP: $303|Avg: $50
97%
#722
Athlon II X3 440
MSRP: $75|Avg: $10
97%
#723
Core i3-4130T
MSRP: $124|Avg: $10
97%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Generational Difference: This comparison involves processors from different technological eras. The Celeron 5205U (2019) utilizes 14 nm technology and DDR3, DDR4, providing a fundamental performance advantage.
InsightCeleron 5205UA4-6300
Gaming
Superior gaming performance
Lower gaming performance
Workstation
Weaker in multi-core tasks
Better multi-core power
Price
Equivalent pricing
Equivalent pricing
Longevity
✨ Modern (Comet Lake-U (2019−2020) / 14 nm)
🛑 Legacy (Richland (2013−2014) / 32 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

The A4-6300 (2013) relies on 32 nm technology and DDR3-1600, placing it in a different performance category relative to modern standards.
InsightCeleron 5205UA4-6300
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost
Equivalent pricing
Equivalent pricing

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 5205U and A4-6300

Intel

Celeron 5205U

The Celeron 5205U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 31 October 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Comet Lake-U (2019−2020) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1528. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,432 points. Launch price was $107.

AMD

A4-6300

The A4-6300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Richland (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,436 points. Launch price was $50.

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 5205U and A4-6300 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 5205U versus 3.9 GHz on the A4-6300 — a 69% clock advantage for the A4-6300 (base: 1.9 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Celeron 5205U uses the Comet Lake-U (2019−2020) architecture (14 nm), while the A4-6300 uses Richland (2013−2014) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 5205U scores 1,432 against the A4-6300's 1,436 — a 0.3% lead for the A4-6300. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 385 vs 373, a 3.2% lead for the Celeron 5205U that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 5205U vs 0 kB on the A4-6300.

FeatureCeleron 5205UA4-6300
Cores / Threads
2 / 2
2 / 2
Boost Clock
1.9 GHz
3.9 GHz+105%
Base Clock
1.9 GHz
3.7 GHz+95%
L3 Cache
2 MB
0 kB
L2 Cache
1 MB
1024 kB
Process
14 nm-56%
32 nm
Architecture
Comet Lake-U (2019−2020)
Richland (2013−2014)
PassMark
1,432
1,436
Geekbench 6 Single
385+3%
373
Geekbench 6 Multi
650
🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 5205U uses the FCBGA1528 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the A4-6300 uses FM2 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the Celeron 5205U versus DDR3-1600 on the A4-6300 — the Celeron 5205U supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 5205U supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 12 (Celeron 5205U) vs 16 (A4-6300) — the A4-6300 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Comet Lake-U (Celeron 5205U) and A55,A58,A68H,A75,A78,A88X (A4-6300).

FeatureCeleron 5205UA4-6300
Socket
FCBGA1528
FM2
PCIe Generation
PCIe 3.0
PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed
DDR4-2400+33%
DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity
64 GB+100%
32 GB
RAM Channels
2
2
ECC Support
PCIe Lanes
12
16+33%
🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 5205U) vs AMD-V (A4-6300). Both include integrated graphics UHD Graphics (Comet Lake) (Celeron 5205U) and Radeon HD 8370D (A4-6300) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 5205U targets Budget, A4-6300 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 5205U rivals Pentium Gold 6405U; A4-6300 rivals Pentium G3220.

FeatureCeleron 5205UA4-6300
Integrated GPU
Yes
Yes
IGPU Model
UHD Graphics (Comet Lake)
Radeon HD 8370D
Unlocked
No
No
AVX-512
No
No
Virtualization
VT-x, VT-d
AMD-V
Target Use
Budget
Budget Desktop