A6-6400K vs Celeron 1017U

A6-6400K vs Celeron 1017U Performance Spectrum

A6-6400K

2 / 2

1,511

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 1017U

2 / 2

1,508

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.

A6-6400K vs Celeron 1017U 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.

A6-6400K vs Celeron 1017U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-6400K

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Celeron 1017U.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron 1017U

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,508 vs 1,511).
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-6400K.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-6400K better than Celeron 1017U?

Yes. A6-6400K is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% 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, A6-6400K is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.9% 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, A6-6400K is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-6400K still makes the most sense overall. A6-6400K comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A6-6400K makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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.

A6-6400K vs Celeron 1017U Technical Specifications

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

A6-6400K

The A6-6400K 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 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,511 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron 1017U

The Celeron 1017U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,508 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-6400K and Celeron 1017U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the A6-6400K versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 1017U — a 87.7% clock advantage for the A6-6400K (base: 3.9 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The A6-6400K uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 1017U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A6-6400K scores 1,511 against the Celeron 1017U's 1,508 — a 0.2% lead for the A6-6400K. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-6400K vs 2 MB on the Celeron 1017U.

Feature	A6-6400K	Celeron 1017U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	4.1 GHz+156%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.9 GHz+144%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	1024 kB+100%	512 kB
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,511	1,508

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-6400K uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 1017U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1866 on the A6-6400K versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1017U — the A6-6400K supports 16.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 32 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: FM2 (A6-6400K) and Intel FCBGA1023 (Celeron 1017U).

Feature	A6-6400K	Celeron 1017U
Socket	FM2	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	1866+17%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (A6-6400K) / not specified (Celeron 1017U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8470D (A6-6400K) and Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1017U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: A6-6400K rivals Pentium G3258.