A6-1450 vs Celeron T1700

A6-1450 vs Celeron T1700 Performance Spectrum

A6-1450

4 / 4

1,062

+0.4%

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.

A6-1450 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.

A6-1450 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.

A6-1450

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 8W instead of 35W, a 27W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8250, while Celeron T1700 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron T1700

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A6-1450 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,058 vs 1,062).
❌Launch MSRP is still $80 MSRP, while A6-1450 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌337.5% higher power demand at 35W vs 8W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-1450 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-1450 better than Celeron T1700?

Yes. A6-1450 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% 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, A6-1450 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.6% 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, A6-1450 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-1450 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A6-1450 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $80 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron T1700 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (13.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

A6-1450 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-1450 vs Celeron T1700 Technical Specifications

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

A6-1450

The A6-1450 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Temash (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,062 points. Launch price was $70.

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 A6-1450 is built on the Temash (2013) architecture. In PassMark, the A6-1450 scores 1,062 against the Celeron T1700's 1,058 — a 0.4% lead for the A6-1450. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-1450 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T1700.

Feature	A6-1450	Celeron T1700
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	—
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	—
Base Clock	1 GHz	1.83 GHz+83%
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	—
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Temash (2013)	—
PassMark	1,062	1,058
Geekbench 6 Single	144	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	450	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-1450 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron T1700 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-1450	Celeron T1700
Socket	FT3	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-1450) / not specified (Celeron T1700). The A6-1450 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8250), while the Celeron T1700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-1450 targets Low Power Tablet/Laptop. Direct competitor: A6-1450 rivals Atom Z3740.