A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron E3200

A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron E3200 Performance Spectrum

A4 Micro-6400T

4 / 4

1,082

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron E3200

2 / 2

1,090

+0.7%

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 E3200 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 E3200: 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

✅Draws 5W instead of 65W, a 60W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R3, while Celeron E3200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (180 vs 340).
❌Lower PassMark (1,082 vs 1,090).

Celeron E3200

2009

Why buy it

✅+88.9% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $43 MSRP, while A4 Micro-6400T mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1200% higher power demand at 65W vs 5W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4 Micro-6400T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E3200 better than A4 Micro-6400T?

Yes. Celeron E3200 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron E3200 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% 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, Celeron E3200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron E3200 is the better buy right now. Celeron E3200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $43 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (25.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 Micro-6400T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4 Micro-6400T vs Celeron E3200 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 E3200

The Celeron E3200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,090 points. Launch price was $52.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4 Micro-6400T packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron E3200 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 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E3200 — a 40% clock advantage for the Celeron E3200 (base: 1 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The A4 Micro-6400T uses the Mullins (2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron E3200 uses Wolfdale (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A4 Micro-6400T scores 1,082 against the Celeron E3200's 1,090 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron E3200. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 180 vs 340, a 61.5% lead for the Celeron E3200 that directly translates to higher frame rates.

Feature	A4 Micro-6400T	Celeron E3200
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.4 GHz+50%
Base Clock	1 GHz	2.4 GHz+140%
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	2048 kB+100%	1 MB (total)
Process	28 nm-38%	45 nm
Architecture	Mullins (2014)	Wolfdale (2008−2010)
PassMark	1,082	1,090
Geekbench 6 Single	180	340+89%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	610

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4 Micro-6400T uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron E3200 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the A4 Micro-6400T versus DDR2-800 on the Celeron E3200 — the A4 Micro-6400T supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron E3200 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4 Micro-6400T) vs 2 (Celeron E3200). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4 Micro-6400T) vs 0 (Celeron E3200) — the A4 Micro-6400T offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4 Micro-6400T	Celeron E3200
Socket	FT3	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333+67%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4 Micro-6400T) vs VT-x (Celeron E3200). The A4 Micro-6400T includes integrated graphics (Radeon R3), while the Celeron E3200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4 Micro-6400T targets Tablet, Celeron E3200 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4 Micro-6400T rivals Atom Z3770; Celeron E3200 rivals Pentium E5200.