Celeron 3965Y vs Celeron M 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.

Celeron 3965Y vs Celeron M 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.

Celeron 3965Y vs Celeron M U3400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron 3965Y

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 512W, a 506W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (10 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 615, while Celeron M U3400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,201 vs 1,205).

Celeron M U3400

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron 3965Y mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌8433.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 6W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 3965Y can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3965Y better than Celeron M U3400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 3965Y is ahead with 22.6% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M U3400 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M U3400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3965Y is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron 3965Y comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you 22.6% higher max boost clock. Celeron M U3400 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games.

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

Celeron 3965Y makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 3965Y vs Celeron M U3400 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 3965Y

The Celeron 3965Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,201 points. Launch price was $69.

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 Celeron 3965Y and Celeron M U3400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 3965Y versus 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 — a 20.3% clock advantage for the Celeron 3965Y. The Celeron 3965Y uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron M U3400 uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3965Y scores 1,201 against the Celeron M U3400's 1,205 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron M U3400. Both processors carry 2 MB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 3965Y	Celeron M U3400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz+23%	1.06 GHz
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,201	1,205
Geekbench 6 Single	372	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	708	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3965Y uses the FCBGA1515 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron M U3400 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 3965Y	Celeron M U3400
Socket	FCBGA1515	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	10	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3965Y) / not specified (Celeron M U3400). The Celeron 3965Y includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 615), while the Celeron M U3400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3965Y targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron 3965Y rivals Pentium Gold 4415Y.