A4-3400 vs Celeron T1700

A4-3400 vs Celeron T1700 Performance Spectrum

A4-3400

2 / 2

1,066

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron T1700

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 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 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: +3.7% 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 T1700 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron T1700.

Trade-offs

❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.

Celeron T1700

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W 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).
❌Launch MSRP is still $80 MSRP, while A4-3400 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌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 T1700?

Yes. A4-3400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.7% 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 3.7% 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 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A4-3400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $80 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron T1700 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (13.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-3400 vs Celeron 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 T1700

The Celeron T1700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.83 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,058 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-3400 is built on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. In PassMark, the A4-3400 scores 1,066 against the Celeron T1700's 1,058 — a 0.8% lead for the A4-3400. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3400 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T1700.

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

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3400 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron T1700 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A4-3400	Celeron T1700
Socket	FM1	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3400) / not specified (Celeron T1700). The A4-3400 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6410D), while the Celeron T1700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620.