Celeron E3200
VS
A4 Micro-6400T

Celeron E3200 vs A4 Micro-6400T

Intel

Celeron E3200

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 2.4 GHz2009
VS
AMD

A4 Micro-6400T

4 Cores4 Thrd5 WWMax: 1.6 GHz2014

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 E3200 is positioned at rank 683 and the A4 Micro-6400T is on rank 843, so the Celeron E3200 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 E3200

#1
Ryzen 9 7950X
MSRP: $194|Avg: $20
12296%
#2
Core i9-10900T
MSRP: $120|Avg: $5
11619%
#3
Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE
MSRP: $423|Avg: $5
8436%
#4
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85
2541%
#5
Ryzen 9 9950X
MSRP: $649|Avg: $129
2013%
#6
Ryzen 5 8400F
MSRP: $303|Avg: $55
1761%
#7
Ryzen 7 PRO 2700
MSRP: $299|Avg: $60
1009%
#8
Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP: $229|Avg: $55
996%
#9
Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G
MSRP: $150|Avg: $60
906%
#10
Core Ultra 5 245KF
MSRP: $294|Avg: $189
906%
#11
Ryzen 5 5500
MSRP: $159|Avg: $85
896%
#12
Ryzen 5 3600
MSRP: $199|Avg: $80
872%
#13
Core i3-9100E
MSRP: $202|Avg: $30
860%
#14
Core Ultra 5 245K
MSRP: $319|Avg: $200
856%
#15
Core i3-8300T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $25
849%
#683
Celeron E3200
MSRP: $43|Avg: $5
100%
#684
Core i5-3470
MSRP: $184|Avg: $55
100%
#685
Core i5-3450S
MSRP: $174|Avg: $20
100%
#686
Core i7-5820K
MSRP: $389|Avg: $103
100%
#687
Core i3-4330
MSRP: $138|Avg: $60
100%
#689
Core i7-7700T
MSRP: $303|Avg: $75
98%
#690
Core i3-4150T
MSRP: $117|Avg: $30
98%
#691
Core i7-3770S
MSRP: $250|Avg: $250
97%
#692
Core i7-6800K
MSRP: $434|Avg: $120
97%
#693
Core i5-4670S
MSRP: $213|Avg: $30
97%
#694
Core i5-3550
MSRP: $194|Avg: $30
97%
#695
Core i3-7300
MSRP: $184|Avg: $46
97%
#696
FX-4300
MSRP: $122|Avg: $25
97%
#697
Core i5-3450
MSRP: $184|Avg: $95
97%
#698
Celeron G550
MSRP: $52|Avg: $15
97%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar A4 Micro-6400T

#831
Atom x5-Z8300
MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A
1356%
#832
Atom Z3735G
MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A
1336%
#833
Core i5-480M
MSRP: $81|Avg: $77
1226%
#834
Core i5-460M
MSRP: $80|Avg: $129
1221%
#835
Core i5-2540M
MSRP: $266|Avg: $10
1210%
#837
Core i5-450M
MSRP: $32|Avg: $31
1168%
#838
Core i3-380M
MSRP: $49|Avg: $25
1120%
#839
Core i5-430M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33
1118%
#840
Core 2 Duo T6600
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4
1088%
#843
A4 Micro-6400T
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#852
Pentium P6300
MSRP: $80|Avg: $10
97%
#854
E-350
MSRP: $50|Avg: $15
97%
#856
Ryzen Embedded R1305G
MSRP: $150|Avg: $50
97%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Celeron E3200 delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the A4 Micro-6400T in both compute-intensive tasks (0.7% faster) and gaming workloads.
InsightCeleron E3200A4 Micro-6400T
Gaming
Superior gaming performance
Lower gaming performance
Workstation
Better multi-core power
Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price
⚠️ Higher cost ($5)
More affordable ($0)
Longevity
🛑 Legacy (Wolfdale (2008−2010) / 45 nm)
🛑 Legacy (Mullins (2014) / 28 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

InsightCeleron E3200A4 Micro-6400T
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost
⚠️ Higher cost ($5)
More affordable ($0)

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.

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron E3200 and A4 Micro-6400T

Intel

Celeron E3200

The Celeron E3200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) 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: 1 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,090 points. Launch price was $52.

AMD

A4 Micro-6400T

The A4 Micro-6400T is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 April 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Mullins (2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 1,082 points. Launch price was $69.

Processing Power

The Celeron E3200 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the A4 Micro-6400T offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the A4 Micro-6400T has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E3200 versus 1.6 GHz on the A4 Micro-6400T — a 40% clock advantage for the Celeron E3200 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 1 GHz). The Celeron E3200 uses the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the A4 Micro-6400T uses Mullins (2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E3200 scores 1,090 against the A4 Micro-6400T's 1,082 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron E3200. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 340 vs 180, a 61.5% lead for the Celeron E3200 that directly translates to higher frame rates.

FeatureCeleron E3200A4 Micro-6400T
Cores / Threads
2 / 2
4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock
2.4 GHz+50%
1.6 GHz
Base Clock
2.4 GHz+140%
1 GHz
L3 Cache
0 kB
L2 Cache
1 MB (total)
2048 kB+100%
Process
45 nm
28 nm-38%
Architecture
Wolfdale (2008−2010)
Mullins (2014)
PassMark
1,090
1,082
Geekbench 6 Single
340+89%
180
Geekbench 6 Multi
610
🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E3200 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the A4 Micro-6400T uses FT3 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Celeron E3200 versus DDR3L-1333 on the A4 Micro-6400T — the A4 Micro-6400T supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron E3200 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron E3200) vs 1 (A4 Micro-6400T). PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron E3200) vs 8 (A4 Micro-6400T) — the A4 Micro-6400T offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

FeatureCeleron E3200A4 Micro-6400T
Socket
LGA775
FT3
PCIe Generation
PCIe 1.1
PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed
DDR2-800
DDR3L-1333+50%
Max RAM Capacity
16 GB+100%
8 GB
RAM Channels
2+100%
1
ECC Support
PCIe Lanes
0
8
🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron E3200) vs AMD-V (A4 Micro-6400T). The A4 Micro-6400T includes integrated graphics (Radeon R3), while the Celeron E3200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3200 targets Budget, A4 Micro-6400T targets Tablet. Direct competitor: Celeron E3200 rivals Pentium E5200; A4 Micro-6400T rivals Atom Z3770.

FeatureCeleron E3200A4 Micro-6400T
Integrated GPU
No
Yes
IGPU Model
Radeon R3
Unlocked
No
No
AVX-512
No
No
Virtualization
VT-x
AMD-V
Target Use
Budget
Tablet