Athlon II X2 255
Celeron M U3400
Athlon II X2 255 vs Celeron M U3400 Performance Spectrum
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 M 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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Athlon II X2 255 vs Celeron M 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 X2 255
2010Why buy it
- ✅Costs $26 less on MSRP ($60 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 43.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 20.2 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($60 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock), unlike Celeron M U3400.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Celeron M U3400
2010Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (1,205 vs 1,210).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.0 vs 20.2 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).
- ❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X2 255.
Quick Answers
So, is Athlon II X2 255 better than Celeron M U3400?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon II X2 255 vs Celeron M U3400 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 M U3400
The Celeron M U3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.06 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,205 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X2 255 and Celeron M U3400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Athlon II X2 255 versus 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 — a 98.1% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 255. The Athlon II X2 255 uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron M U3400 uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 255 scores 1,210 against the Celeron M U3400's 1,205 — a 0.4% lead for the Athlon II X2 255. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 255 vs 2 MB on the Celeron M U3400.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron M U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3.1 GHz+192% | 1.06 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.1 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512 kB |
| Process | 45 nm | 32 nm-29% |
| Architecture | Regor (2009−2013) | Arrandale (2010−2011) |
| PassMark | 1,210 | 1,205 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 265 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 500 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X2 255 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron M U3400 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron M U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | BGA1288 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | Yes | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon II X2 255) / not specified (Celeron M U3400). Primary use case: Athlon II X2 255 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 255 rivals Pentium E5700.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron M U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | — |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Athlon II X2 255 was priced at $60, while the Celeron M U3400 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($60 vs $86), Athlon II X2 255 was $26 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X2 255 delivers 20.2 pts/$ vs 14.0 pts/$ for the Celeron M U3400 — making the Athlon II X2 255 the 36% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron M U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $60-30% | $86 |
| Performance per Dollar | 20.2+44% | 14.0 |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2010 |
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.
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 M U3400
