CPU
GPU
A4 Micro-6400T
Celeron 1000M
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The A4 Micro-6400T is positioned at rank 843 and the Celeron 1000M is on rank 1026, so the A4 Micro-6400T offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar A4 Micro-6400T
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1000M
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | A4 Micro-6400T | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Mullins (2014) / 28 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | A4 Micro-6400T | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of A4 Micro-6400T and Celeron 1000M
A4 Micro-6400T
The A4 Micro-6400T is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 April 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Mullins (2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 1,082 points. Launch price was $69.
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
The A4 Micro-6400T packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 1000M offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A4 Micro-6400T has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the A4 Micro-6400T versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Celeron 1000M (base: 1 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The A4 Micro-6400T uses the Mullins (2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron 1000M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4 Micro-6400T scores 1,082 against the Celeron 1000M's 1,070 — a 1.1% lead for the A4 Micro-6400T.
| Feature | A4 Micro-6400T | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4+100% | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.6 GHz | 1.8 GHz+12% |
| Base Clock | 1 GHz | 1.8 GHz+80% |
| L3 Cache | — | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 2048 kB+700% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 28 nm | 22 nm-21% |
| Architecture | Mullins (2014) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,082+1% | 1,070 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 180 | — |
Memory & Platform
The A4 Micro-6400T uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 1000M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1333 memory speed. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4 Micro-6400T) vs 2 (Celeron 1000M). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4 Micro-6400T) vs 16 (Celeron 1000M) — the Celeron 1000M offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | A4 Micro-6400T | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FT3 | PGA988 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3L-1333 | DDR3-1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 32 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 8 | 16+100% |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: AMD-V (A4 Micro-6400T) / not specified (Celeron 1000M). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R3 (A4 Micro-6400T) 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 Micro-6400T targets Tablet. Direct competitor: A4 Micro-6400T rivals Atom Z3770.
| Feature | A4 Micro-6400T | Celeron 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Radeon R3 | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | — |
| Target Use | Tablet | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on A4 Micro-6400T and Celeron 1000M
