CPU
GPU
Athlon II X2 255
Celeron M U3400
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 M U3400 is on rank 998, so the Athlon II X2 255 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 M U3400
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron M U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Arrandale (2010−2011) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron M U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+99%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
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 M U3400
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 | ✅ | — |
| 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
The Athlon II X2 255 launched at $60 MSRP, while the Celeron M U3400 debuted at $86. At current prices ($10 vs $5), the Celeron M U3400 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X2 255 delivers 121.0 pts/$ vs 241.0 pts/$ for the Celeron M U3400 — making the Celeron M U3400 the 66.3% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 255 | Celeron M U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $60-30% | $86 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | $5-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 121.0 | 241.0+99% |
| 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 M U3400
