A4-3400 vs Celeron 1000M

A4-3400 vs Celeron 1000M Performance Spectrum

A4-3400

2 / 2

1,066

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 1000M

2 / 2

1,070

+0.4%

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.

A4-3400 vs Celeron 1000M 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.

A4-3400 vs Celeron 1000M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A4-3400

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron 1000M.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,066 vs 1,070).

Celeron 1000M

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while A4-3400 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3400.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1000M better than A4-3400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3400 is ahead with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1000M pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1000M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1000M is the better buy right now. Celeron 1000M comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark. The compromise is that A4-3400 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 1000M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-3400 vs Celeron 1000M Technical Specifications

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

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 — 100% 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	No	No
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.