A4-3400 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700

A4-3400 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1700 Performance Spectrum

A4-3400

2 / 2

1,066

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

2 / 2

1,058

0.0%

Core Duo T2050

Celeron N3000

Celeron J1800

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

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 Dual-Core T1700 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 Dual-Core T1700: 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

✅Better for gaming: +3.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6410D, while Celeron Dual-Core T1700 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron Dual-Core T1700.

Trade-offs

❌6400% higher power demand at 65W vs 1W.

Celeron Dual-Core T1700

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 65W, a 64W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A4-3400 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,058 vs 1,066).
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3400 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3400.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3400 better than Celeron Dual-Core T1700?

Yes. A4-3400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A4-3400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.8% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-3400 still makes the most sense overall. A4-3400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A4-3400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2008) 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 Dual-Core T1700 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 Dual-Core T1700

The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.83 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,058 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3400 and Celeron Dual-Core T1700 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the A4-3400 versus 1.83 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 — a 38.4% clock advantage for the A4-3400. The A4-3400 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses Merom (2006−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3400 scores 1,066 against the Celeron Dual-Core T1700's 1,058 — a 0.8% lead for the A4-3400.

Feature	A4-3400	Celeron Dual-Core T1700
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+48%	1.83 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Merom (2006−2008)
PassMark	1,066	1,058
Geekbench 6 Single	349	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3400 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-3400 versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 — the A4-3400 supports 139.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3400 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3400) vs 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700) — the A4-3400 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A4-3400) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700).

Feature	A4-3400	Celeron Dual-Core T1700
Socket	FM1	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+140%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3400) vs No (Celeron Dual-Core T1700). The A4-3400 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6410D), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop, Celeron Dual-Core T1700 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620; Celeron Dual-Core T1700 rivals Pentium T2390.