Celeron E1600 vs Pentium T3400

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 E1600 vs Pentium T3400 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 E1600 vs Pentium T3400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron E1600

2009

Why buy it

✅Costs $97 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
✅Delivers 173.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 15.4 vs 5.6 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Pentium T3400 across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (815 vs 845).
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.

Pentium T3400

2008

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.4% higher average FPS across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.6 vs 15.4 PassMark/$ ($150 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium T3400 better than Celeron E1600?

Yes. Pentium T3400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.4% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Pentium T3400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.4% more average FPS across 38 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Pentium T3400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.7% better PassMark.

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

Pentium T3400 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Pentium T3400 comes in 183.0% more expensive on MSRP at $150 MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.4% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron E1600 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 173.0% better value on paper (15.4 vs 5.6 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Celeron E1600 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron E1600 vs Pentium T3400 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron E1600

The Celeron E1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 815 points. Launch price was $69.

Pentium T3400

The Pentium T3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.16 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 845 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron E1600 is built on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron E1600 scores 815 against the Pentium T3400's 845 — a 3.6% lead for the Pentium T3400. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron E1600 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Pentium T3400.

Feature	Celeron E1600	Pentium T3400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	—
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	—
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+11%	2.16 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512 kB (total)	—
Process	65 nm	65 nm
Architecture	Allendale (2006−2009)	—
PassMark	815	845+4%
Geekbench 6 Single	310	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	560	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E1600 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Pentium T3400 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron E1600	Pentium T3400
Socket	LGA775	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron E1600) / not specified (Pentium T3400). Primary use case: Celeron E1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1600 rivals Pentium E2220.

Feature	Celeron E1600	Pentium T3400
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	No	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron E1600 was priced at $53, while the Pentium T3400 came in at $150. On launch pricing ($53 vs $150), Celeron E1600 was $97 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E1600 delivers 15.4 pts/$ vs 5.6 pts/$ for the Pentium T3400 — making the Celeron E1600 the 92.8% better value option.

Feature	Celeron E1600	Pentium T3400
MSRP	$53-65%	$150
Performance per Dollar	15.4+175%	5.6
Release Date	2009	2008

Search Celeron E1600 on Amazon

Search Pentium T3400 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.