Athlon II X2 255 vs Celeron E3400

Athlon II X2 255 vs Celeron E3400 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X2 255

2 / 2

1,210

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron E3400

2 / 2

1,220

+0.8%

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 X2 255 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.

Athlon II X2 255 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.

Athlon II X2 255

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (265 vs 347).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (500 vs 624).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 20.2 vs 23.0 PassMark/$ ($60 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).

Celeron E3400

2010

Why buy it

✅+30.9% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Costs $7 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).
✅Delivers 14.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 23.0 vs 20.2 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E3400 better than Athlon II X2 255?

Yes. Celeron E3400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 24.8% better Geekbench multi-core, 0.8% higher 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, Celeron E3400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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, Celeron E3400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 24.8% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron E3400 is the better buy right now. Celeron E3400 comes in $7 cheaper on MSRP at $53 MSRP versus $60 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 14.1% better value on MSRP (23.0 vs 20.2 PassMark/$), 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 E3400 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.

Athlon II X2 255 vs Celeron E3400 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II X2 255

The Athlon II X2 255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 25 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,210 points. Launch price was $60.

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

Both the Athlon II X2 255 and Celeron E3400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Athlon II X2 255 versus 2.6 GHz on the Celeron E3400 — a 17.5% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 255 (base: 3.1 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Athlon II X2 255 uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron E3400 uses Wolfdale (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 255 scores 1,210 against the Celeron E3400's 1,220 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron E3400. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 265 vs 347, a 26.8% lead for the Celeron E3400 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 500 vs 624 (22.1% advantage for the Celeron E3400). Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon II X2 255	Celeron E3400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz+19%	2.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.1 GHz+19%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB (total)
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	Regor (2009−2013)	Wolfdale (2008−2010)
PassMark	1,210	1,220
Geekbench 6 Single	265	347+31%
Geekbench 6 Multi	500	624+25%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II X2 255 uses the AM3 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 Athlon II X2 255 versus 1066 on the Celeron E3400 — the Athlon II X2 255 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon II X2 255 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: 760G,780G,785G,790GX,870,880G,890GX,890FX (Athlon II X2 255) and G31,G41,P35,P45 (Celeron E3400).

Feature	Athlon II X2 255	Celeron E3400
Socket	AM3	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+25%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon II X2 255) vs true (Celeron E3400). Primary use case: Athlon II X2 255 targets Legacy Desktop, Celeron E3400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 255 rivals Pentium E5700; Celeron E3400 rivals Pentium E5200.

Feature	Athlon II X2 255	Celeron E3400
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	true
Target Use	Legacy Desktop	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon II X2 255 was priced at $60, while the Celeron E3400 came in at $53. On launch pricing ($60 vs $53), Celeron E3400 was $7 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X2 255 delivers 20.2 pts/$ vs 23.0 pts/$ for the Celeron E3400 — making the Celeron E3400 the 13.2% better value option.

Feature	Athlon II X2 255	Celeron E3400
MSRP	$60	$53-12%
Performance per Dollar	20.2	23.0+14%
Release Date	2010	2010

Search Athlon II X2 255 on Amazon

Search Celeron E3400 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.