A6-3400M vs Celeron E3400

A6-3400M vs Celeron E3400 Performance Spectrum

A6-3400M

4 / 4

1,223

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron E3400

2 / 2

1,220

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.

A6-3400M vs Celeron E3400 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.

A6-3400M vs Celeron E3400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-3400M

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6520G, while Celeron E3400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (218 vs 347).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron E3400.

Celeron E3400

2010

Why buy it

✅+59.2% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike A6-3400M.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,220 vs 1,223).
❌Launch MSRP is still $53 MSRP, while A6-3400M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-3400M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-3400M better than Celeron E3400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron E3400 is ahead with a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A6-3400M pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-3400M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-3400M is still the much better call for a fresh build. A6-3400M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. Celeron E3400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (23.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A6-3400M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010) 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.

A6-3400M vs Celeron E3400 Technical Specifications

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

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 A6-3400M supports 25% 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+25%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
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.