Celeron 1000M vs A4 Micro-6400T
Celeron 1000M
A4 Micro-6400T
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 Micro-6400T is on rank 843, so the A4 Micro-6400T 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 Micro-6400T
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 1000M | A4 Micro-6400T |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Mullins (2014) / 28 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 1000M | A4 Micro-6400T |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Micro-6400T
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 Micro-6400T
The A4 Micro-6400T is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 April 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Mullins (2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 1,082 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Celeron 1000M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the A4 Micro-6400T offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the A4 Micro-6400T has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M versus 1.6 GHz on the A4 Micro-6400T — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Celeron 1000M (base: 1.8 GHz vs 1 GHz). The Celeron 1000M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the A4 Micro-6400T uses Mullins (2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1000M scores 1,070 against the A4 Micro-6400T's 1,082 — a 1.1% lead for the A4 Micro-6400T.
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | A4 Micro-6400T |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 1.8 GHz+12% | 1.6 GHz |
| Base Clock | 1.8 GHz+80% | 1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | — |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 2048 kB+700% |
| Process | 22 nm-21% | 28 nm |
| Architecture | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Mullins (2014) |
| PassMark | 1,070 | 1,082+1% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 180 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 1000M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the A4 Micro-6400T uses FT3 (PCIe 3.0) — 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 8 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 1000M) vs 1 (A4 Micro-6400T). PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 1000M) vs 8 (A4 Micro-6400T) — the Celeron 1000M offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | A4 Micro-6400T |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA988 | FT3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1600 | DDR3L-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB+300% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+100% | 8 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Celeron 1000M) / AMD-V (A4 Micro-6400T). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1000M) and Radeon R3 (A4 Micro-6400T) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4 Micro-6400T targets Tablet. Direct competitor: A4 Micro-6400T rivals Atom Z3770.
| Feature | Celeron 1000M | A4 Micro-6400T |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) | Radeon R3 |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Tablet |
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 Micro-6400T
