Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs A6-9400
Celeron Dual-Core T1400
A6-9400
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. The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 is positioned at rank #638 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A6-9400 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Merom-2M (2008) / 65 nm) | ✨ Modern (Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) / 28 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A6-9400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ 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 Dual-Core T1400 and A6-9400
Celeron Dual-Core T1400
The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom-2M (2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.73 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,725 points. Launch price was $69.
A6-9400
The A6-9400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 2,717 points. Launch price was $70.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and A6-9400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.73 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 versus 3.7 GHz on the A6-9400 — a 72.6% clock advantage for the A6-9400. The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses the Merom-2M (2008) architecture (65 nm), while the A6-9400 uses Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 scores 2,725 against the A6-9400's 2,717 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T1400.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A6-9400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.73 GHz | 3.7 GHz+114% |
| Base Clock | — | 3.4 GHz |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 1 MB (total)+100% |
| Process | 65 nm | 28 nm-57% |
| Architecture | Merom-2M (2008) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| PassMark | 2,725 | 2,717 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the A6-9400 uses AM4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 versus DDR4-2400 on the A6-9400 — the A6-9400 supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-9400 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1400) vs 8 (A6-9400) — the A6-9400 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GM965,GL960 (Celeron Dual-Core T1400) and AMD AM4 (A6-9400).
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A6-9400 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | P | AM4 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | DDR4-2400+100% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 64 GB+1500% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 8 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: No (Celeron Dual-Core T1400) / not specified (A6-9400). The A6-9400 includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon R5), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 rivals Pentium T2370.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A6-9400 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | AMD Radeon R5 |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | No | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and A6-9400
