A4-3400 vs Celeron B840

A4-3400 vs Celeron B840 Performance Spectrum

A4-3400

2 / 2

1,066

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron B840

2 / 2

1,065

0.0%

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 B840 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 B840: 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

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron B840.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (349 vs 450).

Celeron B840

2011

Why buy it

✅+28.9% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,065 vs 1,066).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while A4-3400 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3400.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3400 better than Celeron B840?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron B840 is ahead with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4-3400 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4-3400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-3400 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A4-3400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. Celeron B840 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

A4-3400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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 B840 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 B840

The Celeron B840 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) 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 (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,065 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3400 and Celeron B840 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the A4-3400 versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron B840 — a 34.8% clock advantage for the A4-3400 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The A4-3400 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron B840 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3400 scores 1,066 against the Celeron B840's 1,065 — a 0.1% lead for the A4-3400. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 349 vs 450, a 25.3% lead for the Celeron B840 that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3400 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B840.

Feature	A4-3400	Celeron B840
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+42%	1.9 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz+42%	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,066	1,065
Geekbench 6 Single	349	450+29%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	790

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3400 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron B840 uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-3400 versus 1333 on the Celeron B840 — the A4-3400 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A4-3400) and HM65,HM67,QM67 (Celeron B840).

Feature	A4-3400	Celeron B840
Socket	FM1	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+20%	1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3400) vs true (Celeron B840). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6410D (A4-3400) and Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron B840) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop, Celeron B840 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620; Celeron B840 rivals Pentium B940.

Feature	A4-3400	Celeron B840
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6410D	Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	true
Target Use	Budget Desktop	Budget