Athlon II Neo K145 vs Celeron U3400

Athlon II Neo K145 vs Celeron U3400 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K145

1 / 1

565

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron U3400

2 / 2

575

+1.8%

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.

Athlon II Neo K145 vs Celeron 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.

Athlon II Neo K145 vs Celeron U3400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon II Neo K145

2010

Why buy it

✅Costs $36 less on MSRP ($50 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Delivers 69.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 11.3 vs 6.7 PassMark/$ ($50 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Draws 1W instead of 18W, a 17W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (565 vs 575).

Celeron U3400

2010

Why buy it

✅+1.8% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.7 vs 11.3 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $50 MSRP).
❌1700% higher power demand at 18W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II Neo K145 better than Celeron U3400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon II Neo K145 is ahead with a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron U3400 pulls ahead with 1.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron U3400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon II Neo K145 is the better buy right now. Athlon II Neo K145 comes in $36 cheaper on MSRP at $50 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Celeron U3400 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.8% better PassMark. It is also 69.0% better value on MSRP (11.3 vs 6.7 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron U3400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II Neo K145 vs Celeron U3400 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II Neo K145

The Athlon II Neo K145 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Nile (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 565 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron U3400

The Celeron U3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.06 GHz, with boost up to 0.07 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 575 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II Neo K145 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron U3400 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron U3400 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K145 versus 0.07 GHz on the Celeron U3400 — a 185% clock advantage for the Athlon II Neo K145. The Athlon II Neo K145 uses the Nile (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron U3400 uses Westmere (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K145 scores 565 against the Celeron U3400's 575 — a 1.8% lead for the Celeron U3400.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K145	Celeron U3400
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz+2471%	0.07 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.06 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	45 nm	32 nm-29%
Architecture	Nile (2010)	Westmere (2010−2011)
PassMark	565	575+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II Neo K145 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron U3400 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K145	Celeron U3400
Socket	S1	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon II Neo K145 was priced at $50, while the Celeron U3400 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($50 vs $86), Athlon II Neo K145 was $36 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II Neo K145 delivers 11.3 pts/$ vs 6.7 pts/$ for the Celeron U3400 — making the Athlon II Neo K145 the 51.3% better value option.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K145	Celeron U3400
MSRP	$50-42%	$86
Performance per Dollar	11.3+69%	6.7
Release Date	2010	2010

Search Athlon II Neo K145 on Amazon

Search Celeron U3400 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.