Atom D2500 vs Celeron U3400

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.

Atom D2500 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.

Atom D2500 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.

Atom D2500

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $44 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Delivers 115.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.4 vs 6.7 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Draws 10W instead of 18W, a 8W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron U3400

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom D2500 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (575 vs 605).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.7 vs 14.4 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).
❌80% higher power demand at 18W vs 10W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom D2500 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom D2500 better than Celeron U3400?

Yes. Atom D2500 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.2% better 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, Atom D2500 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.5% 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, Atom D2500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom D2500 is the better buy right now. Atom D2500 comes in $44 cheaper on MSRP at $42 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 115.4% better value on MSRP (14.4 vs 6.7 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Atom D2500 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010) and 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.

Atom D2500 vs Celeron U3400 Technical Specifications

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

Atom D2500

The Atom D2500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.87 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 605 points. Launch price was $69.

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

Both the Atom D2500 and Celeron U3400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.87 GHz on the Atom D2500 versus 0.07 GHz on the Celeron U3400 — a 185.6% clock advantage for the Atom D2500 (base: 1.86 GHz vs 1.06 GHz). The Atom D2500 uses the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron U3400 uses Westmere (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom D2500 scores 605 against the Celeron U3400's 575 — a 5.1% lead for the Atom D2500. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom D2500 vs 2 MB on the Celeron U3400.

Feature	Atom D2500	Celeron U3400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.87 GHz+2571%	0.07 GHz
Base Clock	1.86 GHz+75%	1.06 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Cedarview (2011−2012)	Westmere (2010−2011)
PassMark	605+5%	575

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom D2500 uses the FCBGA559 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron U3400 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Atom D2500	Celeron U3400
Socket	FCBGA559	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

The Atom D2500 includes integrated graphics (Intel GMA 3600), while the Celeron U3400 requires a dedicated GPU.

Feature	Atom D2500	Celeron U3400
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	Intel GMA 3600	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Atom D2500 was priced at $42, while the Celeron U3400 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($42 vs $86), Atom D2500 was $44 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Atom D2500 delivers 14.4 pts/$ vs 6.7 pts/$ for the Celeron U3400 — making the Atom D2500 the 73.2% better value option.

Feature	Atom D2500	Celeron U3400
MSRP	$42-51%	$86
Performance per Dollar	14.4+115%	6.7
Release Date	2011	2010

Search Atom D2500 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.