Celeron 3215U vs Core 2 Duo E4400

CPU

GPU

Celeron 3215U

2 Cores2 Thrd512 WWMax: 1.7 GHz2015

Core 2 Duo E4400

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 2 GHz2007

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Celeron 3215U

2 / 2

1,091

0.0%

1,095

+0.4%

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 3215U is positioned at rank 241 and the Core 2 Duo E4400 is on rank 1001, so the Celeron 3215U offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 3215U

#64

Ryzen AI Max PRO 390

MSRP: $600|Avg: $600

99%

#229

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

403%

#230

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

397%

#231

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

365%

#232

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

363%

#233

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

360%

#235

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

348%

#236

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

333%

#237

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

333%

#238

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

324%

#241

Celeron 3215U

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Duo E4400

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

32169%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

30396%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

22070%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

6649%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

5267%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

4607%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

2639%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

2604%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

2371%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

2371%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

2345%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

2281%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

2249%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

2240%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

2220%

#1001

Core 2 Duo E4400

MSRP: $113|Avg: $20

100%

#1002

Pentium D 915

MSRP: $74|Avg: $10

98%

#1003

Core 2 Quad Q9400

MSRP: $229|Avg: $25

97%

#1004

Core i5-655K

MSRP: $216|Avg: $55

96%

#1005

Celeron 450

MSRP: $53|Avg: $5

96%

#1006

Core 2 Duo E4600

MSRP: $133|Avg: $9.6

96%

#1008

Core i7-870S

MSRP: $300|Avg: $80

95%

#1009

Core 2 Duo E6540

MSRP: $163|Avg: $15

95%

#1010

Celeron 430

MSRP: $49|Avg: $10

94%

#1011

Athlon X2 BE-2300

MSRP: $100|Avg: $80

93%

#1012

Core i7-875K

MSRP: $353|Avg: $175

93%

#1013

Core i5-670

MSRP: $284|Avg: $100

93%

#1014

Core i5-680

MSRP: $294|Avg: $10

92%

#1015

Core 2 Duo E4300

MSRP: $113|Avg: $5

92%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Generational Difference: This comparison involves processors from different technological eras. The Celeron 3215U (2015) utilizes 14 nm technology and DDR3, providing a fundamental performance advantage.

Insight	Celeron 3215U	Core 2 Duo E4400
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	✅ More affordable ($0)	⚠️ Higher cost ($20)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Broadwell (2015−2019) / 14 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Allendale (2006−2009) / 65 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

The Core 2 Duo E4400 (2007) relies on 65 nm technology and DDR1, DDR2, DDR3, placing it in a different performance category relative to modern standards.

Insight	Celeron 3215U	Core 2 Duo E4400
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($0)	⚠️ Higher cost ($20)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Celeron 3215U Benchmark Check

Core 2 Duo E4400 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 3215U and Core 2 Duo E4400

Celeron 3215U

The Celeron 3215U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,091 points. Launch price was $107.

Core 2 Duo E4400

The Core 2 Duo E4400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,095 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3215U and Core 2 Duo E4400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3215U versus 2 GHz on the Core 2 Duo E4400 — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Core 2 Duo E4400 (base: 1.7 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Celeron 3215U uses the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Core 2 Duo E4400 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3215U scores 1,091 against the Core 2 Duo E4400's 1,095 — a 0.4% lead for the Core 2 Duo E4400. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 339 vs 208, a 47.9% lead for the Celeron 3215U that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 3215U vs 0 kB on the Core 2 Duo E4400.

Feature	Celeron 3215U	Core 2 Duo E4400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	2 GHz+18%
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	2 GHz+18%
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	2 MB+300%
Process	14 nm-78%	65 nm
Architecture	Broadwell (2015−2019)	Allendale (2006−2009)
PassMark	1,091	1,095
Geekbench 6 Single	339+63%	208

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3215U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Duo E4400 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3215U versus DDR2-1066 on the Core 2 Duo E4400 — the Celeron 3215U supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 12 (Celeron 3215U) vs 0 (Core 2 Duo E4400) — the Celeron 3215U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3215U) and RS600,Q965 (Core 2 Duo E4400).

Feature	Celeron 3215U	Core 2 Duo E4400
Socket	FCBGA1168	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+50%	DDR2-1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	12	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3215U) vs None (Core 2 Duo E4400). The Celeron 3215U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Core 2 Duo E4400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3215U targets Budget, Core 2 Duo E4400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3215U rivals Pentium 3825U; Core 2 Duo E4400 rivals Athlon II X2 240.