A4-3400 vs Celeron 1000M
A4-3400
Celeron 1000M
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 A4-3400 is positioned at rank 850 and the Celeron 1000M is on rank 1026, so the A4-3400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar A4-3400
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1000M
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | A4-3400 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | A4-3400 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
Performance Check
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 A4-3400 and Celeron 1000M
A4-3400
The A4-3400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,066 points. Launch price was $50.
Celeron 1000M
The Celeron 1000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,070 points. Launch price was $86.
Processing Power
Both the A4-3400 and Celeron 1000M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the A4-3400 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M — a 40% clock advantage for the A4-3400 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The A4-3400 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 1000M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3400 scores 1,066 against the Celeron 1000M's 1,070 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron 1000M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3400 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1000M.
| Feature | A4-3400 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.7 GHz+50% | 1.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.7 GHz+50% | 1.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core)+100% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 32 nm | 22 nm-31% |
| Architecture | Llano (2011−2012) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,066 | 1,070 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 349 | — |
Memory & Platform
The A4-3400 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1000M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A4-3400) and Intel FCPGA988 (Celeron 1000M).
| Feature | A4-3400 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FM1 | PGA988 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1600 | DDR3-1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | 32 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3400) / not specified (Celeron 1000M). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6410D (A4-3400) and Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1000M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620.
| Feature | A4-3400 | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Radeon HD 6410D | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | — |
| Target Use | Budget Desktop | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on A4-3400 and Celeron 1000M
