Athlon II X2 255 vs Celeron E3400
Athlon II X2 255
Celeron E3400
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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. The Athlon II X2 255 is positioned at rank 793 and the Celeron E3400 is on rank 727, so the Celeron E3400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X2 255
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E3400
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron E3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Wolfdale (2008−2010) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron E3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+49%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
Performance Check
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon II X2 255 and Celeron E3400
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 Celeron E3400 supports 198.9% 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 — 66.7% 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 | 1066+35433% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+209715100% | 8 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| 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
The Athlon II X2 255 launched at $60 MSRP, while the Celeron E3400 debuted at $53. At current prices ($10 vs $15), the Athlon II X2 255 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X2 255 delivers 121.0 pts/$ vs 81.3 pts/$ for the Celeron E3400 — making the Athlon II X2 255 the 39.2% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron E3400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $60 | $53-12% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-33% | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 121.0+49% | 81.3 |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2010 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon II X2 255 and Celeron E3400
