AMD Pro A10-8700B vs Intel Celeron N3050

VS
Performance
Pro A10-8700B128% better
2,123.56% of 36,991
Celeron N3050
9323% of 36,991

The Pro A10-8700B has 128% better performance than the Celeron N3050 for the 3DMark 11 Performance Physics benchmark.

Performance per dollar
Pro A10-8700B
No data available
Celeron N3050
No data available

We do not have any performance per dollar data for the Pro A10-8700B and the Celeron N3050 for the 3DMark 11 Performance Physics benchmark.

Shop Pro A10-8700B
Shop Celeron N3050
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Summary

#

About the AMD Pro A10-8700B CPU

The AMD Pro A10-8700B is a 4-core (4-thread) processor built for the mobile CPU market. The Pro A10-8700B is compatible with Socket FP4 (968) motherboards and is fabricated on a 28 nm manufacturing process. It features the Radeon R6 Series integrated graphics solution.

Memory and Cache

In terms of cache, the Pro A10-8700B has multiple levels of cache. Its L1 cache, which is the smallest and fastest, is 512 KB in size, providing rapid access to crucial instructions. Its L2 cache, at 2 MB, is larger but slower than the L1.

Cores and Clock Speeds

The Pro A10-8700B features 4 total cores which can process 4 threads simultaneously. The multi-threading capability allows the CPU to execute multiple computational tasks in parallel. The base clock speed of the CPU is 1800.0 MHz, and it can boost up to 3200.0 MHz under heavy workloads. Higher clock speeds result in better performance for the same microarchitecture.

Integrated Graphics

The Pro A10-8700B includes an integrated graphics solution called Radeon R6 Series. This graphics processor is directly integrated into the CPU and is not as powerful as a dedicated graphics card. While integrated graphics can handle basic tasks like web browsing and office applications, it is not suitable for more demanding activities such as gaming or video editing, where a dedicated graphics card offers superior performance.

Benchmark Performance

The Pro A10-8700B has the 604th best 3DMark 11 Performance Physics score among the 721 benchmarked CPUs in our database. It achieves 5.74% of the performance of the best benchmarked CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D.

About the Intel Celeron N3050 CPU

The Intel Celeron N3050 is a 2-core (2-thread) processor built for the mobile CPU market. The N3050 is compatible with FCBGA1170 motherboards and is fabricated on a 14 nm manufacturing process. It features the Intel HD Graphics for Intel Celeron Processor N3000 Series integrated graphics solution.

Memory and Cache

In terms of cache, the Celeron N3050 has multiple levels of cache. Its L1 cache, which is the smallest and fastest, is 112 KB in size, providing rapid access to crucial instructions. Its L2 cache, at 2 MB, is larger but slower than the L1. Its L3 cache, a shared resource among the CPU's cores, has a capacity of 0 MB.

Cores and Clock Speeds

The Celeron N3050 features 2 total cores which can process 2 threads simultaneously. The multi-threading capability allows the CPU to execute multiple computational tasks in parallel. The base clock speed of the CPU is 1600.0 MHz, and it can boost up to 2160.0 MHz under heavy workloads. Higher clock speeds result in better performance for the same microarchitecture.

Integrated Graphics

The Celeron N3050 includes an integrated graphics solution called Intel HD Graphics for Intel Celeron Processor N3000 Series. This graphics processor is directly integrated into the CPU and is not as powerful as a dedicated graphics card. While integrated graphics can handle basic tasks like web browsing and office applications, it is not suitable for more demanding activities such as gaming or video editing, where a dedicated graphics card offers superior performance.

Benchmark Performance

The Celeron N3050 has the 704th best 3DMark 11 Performance Physics score among the 721 benchmarked CPUs in our database. It achieves 2.52% of the performance of the best benchmarked CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D.

General Info

General overview of the CPU, including details like its manufacturer, release date, launch price, and current production status.

InfoPro A10-8700BCeleron N3050
ManufacturerAMDIntel
Market SegmentMobileMobile
ShopCheck PriceCheck Price

Benchmark Performance

#
Performance
Pro A10-8700B128% better
2,123.56% of 36,991
Celeron N3050
9323% of 36,991

The Pro A10-8700B has 128% better performance than the Celeron N3050 for the 3DMark 11 Performance Physics benchmark.

The Pro A10-8700B is ranked 604th with a score of 2,123.5, and the Celeron N3050 is ranked 704th with a score of 932.

Performance per dollar
Pro A10-8700B
No data available
Celeron N3050
No data available

We do not have any performance per dollar data for the Pro A10-8700B and the Celeron N3050 for the 3DMark 11 Performance Physics benchmark.

Relative Performance

The average score in the benchmark test can be compared to similar CPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, powerful CPUs tend to have higher scores.

Choose Baseline CPU:Pro A10-8700B or
CPUBenchmark Performance
A10-8700P2,150.5+1%
Pentium B9602,139+1%
Pro A10-8700B2,123.5
Core M-5Y512,122-0%
Core i3-3217U2,111.5-1%
Celeron N2807976-54%
Celeron N2820967-54%
Celeron N3050932-56%
Celeron N2815871.5-59%
Celeron N2810858-60%

Relative Value For Money

The average performance per dollar in the benchmark test can be compared to similar CPUs to assess relative value. A higher score implies a better value for your money.

Choose Baseline CPU:Pro A10-8700B orCeleron N3050
CPUPerformance Per Dollar
Our database does not have enough data to compare the benchmark performance per dollar with other CPUs.

Benchmark Scores

This table showcases the average performance scores achieved by both CPUs across industry-standard benchmark tests. These scores provide a valuable insight into overall performance. Powerful CPUs tend to have higher scores.

  • Popular
BenchmarkPro A10-8700BCeleron N3050
3DMark 11 Performance Physics
2,123.5
(+127.84%)
932
3DMark Time Spy CPU
675
--
Cinebench R15 Multi-Core
192
(+207.2%)
62.5
Cinebench R15 Single-Core
70
(+105.88%)
34
Geekbench 6.2 Multi-Core
1,006
(+304.02%)
249
Geekbench 6.2 Single-Core
475
(+223.13%)
147
CPU Mark Multi-Thread
2,224
(+276.31%)
591
CPU Mark Single-Thread
1,123
(+101.25%)
558
Benchmarks Source: Notebookcheck

Technical Specs

#

Manufacturing Details

Information about the CPU's manufacturing like its foundry, process size, and transistor count.

SpecPro A10-8700BCeleron N3050
ManufacturerAMDIntel
Process Size28 nm14 nm
Transistors3,100 million--

Architecture

CPU architecture specs like its memory channels, memory support, and microarchitecture. Newer CPU architectures can minimize bottlenecks and improve execution efficiency using more advanced techniques.

SpecPro A10-8700BCeleron N3050
CodenameCarrizoBraswell

Cores & Clock Speeds

Processing power information like its cores and clock speed. These specs impact how fast they can handle instructions and tasks. These have a strong impact on the CPU's performance.

SpecPro A10-8700BCeleron N3050
Cores42
Threads42
Clock Speed1800.0 MHz1600.0 MHz
Turbo Clock3200.0 MHz2160.0 MHz

Cache

CPU cache specs like its L1 & L2 cache. These provide the CPU with a small, but super-fast memory access. A larger cache can improve a CPU's performance.

SpecPro A10-8700BCeleron N3050
L1 Cache512 KB112 KB
L2 Cache2 MB2 MB
L3 Cache--0 MB

Compatibility & Power Consumption

Compatibility and power consumption information like its socket type, thermal design power, power limits. These can help verify the CPU's compatibility with other PC components.

SpecPro A10-8700BCeleron N3050
SocketSocket FP4 (968)FCBGA1170
Thermal Design Power (TDP)35 W6 W
TJ Max--90 °C

Graphics, Features, & Extensions

Additional CPU features like its bundled coolers, integrated graphics, and extensions/technologies.

SpecPro A10-8700BCeleron N3050
Integrated GraphicsRadeon R6 SeriesIntel HD Graphics for Intel Celeron Processor N3000 Series

Check out these comparisons for similar CPUs:

Looking for alternatives? Check out these similar CPUs:

* Performance rating, performance per dollar, and rankings are based on the 3DMark 11 Performance Physics benchmark and MSRP.