AMD
AMD A8-3820 vs Celeron N3160
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Celeron N3160
Aggregate performance score
We've compared A8-3820 and Celeron N3160 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗A8-3820 outperforms Celeron N3160 by ~84% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+84%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 0Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Equal catalog scores
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider A8-3820
No distinct advantage is established by the available data. Compare platform compatibility and your own workload.
Reasons to consider Celeron N3160
- Lower stated power consumption
- Higher catalog value index
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
IntelPerformance
Single-core
Multi-core
Price / performance
L3 cache
Efficiency
11
4737
97
1024
00
221
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
1
1
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
7
7
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
5
5
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
2
21Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
0
0
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Release date
Device class
PassMarkBetter
PBP / MTP
Cores / Threads
Socket
Integrated graphicsBetter
Architecture
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
L1 cacheBetter
L2 cache
L3 cacheBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Memory support
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Single-core IndexH2H Index / 100473724%
H2H Multi-core IndexH2H Index / 1009725%
H2H Productivity IndexH2H Index / 100191524%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 1007615%
H2H Value IndexH2H Index / 100102482%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H ML Preprocessing IndexH2H Index / 100110%
H2H CPU Inference IndexH2H Index / 100110%
H2H Local LLM CPU IndexH2H Index / 100110%
H2H Data Pipeline IndexH2H Index / 100110%
H2H Computer Vision CPU IndexH2H Index / 100110%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 0
- Specifications
- 0 / 34
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (2)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
No recorded changes yet. Change tracking starts with the evidence system; earlier history has not been reconstructed.
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: A8-3820 or Celeron N3160?+
A8-3820 has the higher overall gaming score, while Celeron N3160 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
A8-3820 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
A8-3820 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
A8-3820 offers more overall performance, while A8-3820 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
A8-3820 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Celeron N3160 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
A8-3820 leads in combined 1440p performance. A8-3820 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
A8-3820 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
A8-3820 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
A8-3820 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to A8-3820 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.