Celeron Dual-Core T1700 vs A4-3400
Celeron Dual-Core T1700
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 Dual-Core T1700 is positioned at rank 769 and the A4-3400 is on rank 850, so the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T1700
Performance Per Dollar A4-3400
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1700 | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1700 | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 T1700 and A4-3400
Celeron Dual-Core T1700
The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.83 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,058 points. Launch price was $69.
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 Dual-Core T1700 and A4-3400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.83 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 versus 2.7 GHz on the A4-3400 — a 38.4% clock advantage for the A4-3400. The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the A4-3400 uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 scores 1,058 against the A4-3400's 1,066 — a 0.8% lead for the A4-3400.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1700 | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.83 GHz | 2.7 GHz+48% |
| Base Clock | — | 2.7 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512 kB (per core) |
| Process | 65 nm | 32 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Merom (2006−2008) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| PassMark | 1,058 | 1,066 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 349 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T1700 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the A4-3400 uses FM1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 versus DDR3-1600 on the A4-3400 — the A4-3400 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3400 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700) vs 16 (A4-3400) — the A4-3400 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron Dual-Core T1700) and A55,A75 (A4-3400).
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1700 | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | FM1 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | DDR3-1600+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron Dual-Core T1700) vs AMD-V (A4-3400). The A4-3400 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6410D), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1700 targets Budget, A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1700 rivals Pentium T2390; A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1700 | A4-3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Radeon HD 6410D |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | No | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Budget | 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 Dual-Core T1700 and A4-3400
