A4-3420 vs Celeron T1700

A4-3420 vs Celeron T1700 Performance Spectrum

A4-3420

2 / 2

1,067

+0.9%

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.

A4-3420 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.

A4-3420 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.

A4-3420

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $15 less on MSRP ($65 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).
✅Delivers 24.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.4 vs 13.2 PassMark/$ ($65 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).
✅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.

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 A4-3420 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,058 vs 1,067).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.2 vs 16.4 PassMark/$ ($80 MSRP vs $65 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3420 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3420.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3420 better than Celeron T1700?

Yes. A4-3420 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, 0.9% 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, A4-3420 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, A4-3420 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-3420 is the better buy right now. A4-3420 comes in $15 cheaper on MSRP at $65 MSRP versus $80 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 24.1% better value on MSRP (16.4 vs 13.2 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A4-3420 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.

A4-3420 vs Celeron T1700 Technical Specifications

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

A4-3420

The A4-3420 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 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 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: 1,067 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 A4-3420 is built on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. In PassMark, the A4-3420 scores 1,067 against the Celeron T1700's 1,058 — a 0.8% lead for the A4-3420. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3420 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T1700.

Feature	A4-3420	Celeron T1700
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	—
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz	—
Base Clock	2.8 GHz+53%	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	1,067	1,058
Geekbench 6 Single	300	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	500	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3420 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron T1700 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A4-3420	Celeron T1700
Socket	FM1	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A4-3420) / not specified (Celeron T1700). The A4-3420 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6410D), while the Celeron T1700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3420 targets Entry Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3420 rivals Pentium G630.

Feature	A4-3420	Celeron T1700
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6410D	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	AMD-V	—
Target Use	Entry Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the A4-3420 was priced at $65, while the Celeron T1700 came in at $80. On launch pricing ($65 vs $80), A4-3420 was $15 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A4-3420 delivers 16.4 pts/$ vs 13.2 pts/$ for the Celeron T1700 — making the A4-3420 the 21.5% better value option.

Feature	A4-3420	Celeron T1700
MSRP	$65-19%	$80
Performance per Dollar	16.4+24%	13.2
Release Date	2011	2008

Search A4-3420 on Amazon

Search Celeron T1700 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.