Celeron 1000M vs A4-3400
Celeron 1000M
A4-3400
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 Celeron 1000M is positioned at rank 1026 and the A4-3400 is on rank 850, so the A4-3400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1000M
Performance Per Dollar A4-3400
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 1000M | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 1000M | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
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 Celeron 1000M and A4-3400
Celeron 1000M
The Celeron 1000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,070 points. Launch price was $86.
A4-3400
The A4-3400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,066 points. Launch price was $50.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron 1000M and A4-3400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M versus 2.7 GHz on the A4-3400 — a 40% clock advantage for the A4-3400 (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Celeron 1000M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the A4-3400 uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1000M scores 1,070 against the A4-3400's 1,066 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron 1000M. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1000M vs 0 kB on the A4-3400.
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.8 GHz | 2.7 GHz+50% |
| Base Clock | 1.8 GHz | 2.7 GHz+50% |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512 kB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 22 nm-31% | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| PassMark | 1,070 | 1,066 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 349 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 1000M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the A4-3400 uses FM1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCPGA988 (Celeron 1000M) and A55,A75 (A4-3400).
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA988 | FM1 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1600 | DDR3-1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB+100% | 16 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Celeron 1000M) / AMD-V (A4-3400). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1000M) and Radeon HD 6410D (A4-3400) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620.
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) | Radeon HD 6410D |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Budget Desktop |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 1000M and A4-3400
