A6-3400M vs Celeron E3400
A6-3400M
Celeron E3400
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 A6-3400M is positioned at rank 869 and the Celeron E3400 is on rank 727, so the Celeron E3400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar A6-3400M
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E3400
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | A6-3400M | Celeron E3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Wolfdale (2008−2010) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | A6-3400M | Celeron E3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
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 A6-3400M and Celeron E3400
A6-3400M
The A6-3400M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,223 points. Launch price was $70.
Celeron E3400
The Celeron E3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 17 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 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: 1,220 points. Launch price was $76.
Processing Power
The A6-3400M packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron E3400 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3400M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the A6-3400M versus 2.6 GHz on the Celeron E3400 — a 12.2% clock advantage for the Celeron E3400 (base: 1.4 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The A6-3400M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron E3400 uses Wolfdale (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3400M scores 1,223 against the Celeron E3400's 1,220 — a 0.2% lead for the A6-3400M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 218 vs 347, a 45.7% lead for the Celeron E3400 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | A6-3400M | Celeron E3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4+100% | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.3 GHz | 2.6 GHz+13% |
| Base Clock | 1.4 GHz | 2.6 GHz+86% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (total) |
| Process | 32 nm-29% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Llano (2011−2012) | Wolfdale (2008−2010) |
| PassMark | 1,223 | 1,220 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 218 | 347+59% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 624 |
Memory & Platform
The A6-3400M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron E3400 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A6-3400M versus 1066 on the Celeron E3400 — the Celeron E3400 supports 198.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A6-3400M) vs 0 (Celeron E3400) — the A6-3400M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | A6-3400M | Celeron E3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FS1 | LGA775 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | 1066+35433% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB+104857500% | 8 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A6-3400M) vs true (Celeron E3400). The A6-3400M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6520G), while the Celeron E3400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3400M targets Budget Laptop, Celeron E3400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A6-3400M rivals Core i3-2310M; Celeron E3400 rivals Pentium E5200.
| Feature | A6-3400M | Celeron E3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon HD 6520G | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | true |
| Target Use | Budget Laptop | Budget |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on A6-3400M and Celeron E3400
