A6-5357M vs Celeron M U3400

A6-5357M vs Celeron M U3400 Performance Spectrum

A6-5357M

2 / 2

1,219

+1.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron M U3400

2 / 2

1,205

0.0%

Atom E3827

Celeron 877

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.

A6-5357M vs Celeron M U3400 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.

A6-5357M vs Celeron M U3400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-5357M

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8450G, while Celeron M U3400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron M U3400

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,205 vs 1,219).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while A6-5357M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-5357M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-5357M better than Celeron M U3400?

Yes. A6-5357M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.2% 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, A6-5357M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.4% 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, A6-5357M is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-5357M is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. A6-5357M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M U3400 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 2.4% in the shared gaming data.

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

A6-5357M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-5357M vs Celeron M U3400 Technical Specifications

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

A6-5357M

The A6-5357M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Richland (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FP2. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,219 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron M U3400

The Celeron M U3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.06 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,205 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-5357M and Celeron M U3400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the A6-5357M versus 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 — a 107% clock advantage for the A6-5357M. The A6-5357M uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron M U3400 uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-5357M scores 1,219 against the Celeron M U3400's 1,205 — a 1.2% lead for the A6-5357M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-5357M vs 2 MB on the Celeron M U3400.

Feature	A6-5357M	Celeron M U3400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz+230%	1.06 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,219+1%	1,205
Geekbench 6 Single	380	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-5357M uses the FP2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron M U3400 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-5357M	Celeron M U3400
Socket	FP2	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-5357M) / not specified (Celeron M U3400). The A6-5357M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8450G), while the Celeron M U3400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-5357M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A6-5357M rivals Core i3-3120M.