A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 1000M

A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 1000M Performance Spectrum

A4 Micro-6400T

4 / 4

1,082

+1.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 1000M

2 / 2

1,070

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 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 1000M 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 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 1000M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A4 Micro-6400T

2014

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 5W instead of 512W, a 507W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Celeron 1000M

2013

Why buy it

✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,070 vs 1,082).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while A4 Micro-6400T mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌10140% higher power demand at 512W vs 5W.

Quick Answers

So, is A4 Micro-6400T better than Celeron 1000M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 1000M is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4 Micro-6400T pulls ahead with 1.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4 Micro-6400T is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A4 Micro-6400T is still the much better call for a fresh build. A4 Micro-6400T comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.1% better PassMark. Celeron 1000M only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 Micro-6400T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron 1000M Technical Specifications

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

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. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the A4 Micro-6400T versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1000M — the Celeron 1000M supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% 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+20%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
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.