A6-9400 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1400

A6-9400

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2019

Celeron Dual-Core T1400

2 Cores2 Thrd512 WWMax: 1.73 GHz2008

Performance Spectrum - CPU

A6-9400

2 / 2

2,717

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron Dual-Core T1400

2 / 2

2,725

+0.3%

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T1400

#187

Core Ultra 9 288V

MSRP: $600|Avg: $600

99%

#188

Core i7-10870H

MSRP: $417|Avg: N/A

99%

#626

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

861%

#627

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

849%

#628

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

779%

#629

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

776%

#630

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

769%

#632

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

742%

#633

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

712%

#634

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

711%

#635

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

691%

#638

Celeron Dual-Core T1400

MSRP: $80|Avg: $10

100%

#650

Core i5-1345UE

MSRP: $312|Avg: $312

97%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Generational Difference: This comparison involves processors from different technological eras. The A6-9400 (2019) utilizes 28 nm technology and DDR4-2400, providing a fundamental performance advantage.

Insight	A6-9400	Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	✅ More affordable ($0)	⚠️ Higher cost ($10)
Longevity	✨ Modern (Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) / 28 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Merom-2M (2008) / 65 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 (2008) relies on 65 nm technology and older memory, placing it in a different performance category relative to modern standards.

Insight	A6-9400	Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($0)	⚠️ Higher cost ($10)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

A6-9400 Benchmark Check

Celeron Dual-Core T1400 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of A6-9400 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400

A6-9400

The A6-9400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 2,717 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron Dual-Core T1400

The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom-2M (2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.73 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,725 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-9400 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the A6-9400 versus 1.73 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 — a 72.6% clock advantage for the A6-9400. The A6-9400 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses Merom-2M (2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9400 scores 2,717 against the Celeron Dual-Core T1400's 2,725 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T1400.

Feature	A6-9400	Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+114%	1.73 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz	—
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)+100%	512 kB
Process	28 nm-57%	65 nm
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Merom-2M (2008)
PassMark	2,717	2,725

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9400 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the A6-9400 versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 — the A6-9400 supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-9400 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-9400) vs 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1400) — the A6-9400 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM4 (A6-9400) and GM965,GL960 (Celeron Dual-Core T1400).

Feature	A6-9400	Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Socket	AM4	P
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400+100%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+1500%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	8	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (A6-9400) / No (Celeron Dual-Core T1400). The A6-9400 includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon R5), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 rivals Pentium T2370.