CPU
GPU
Celeron E3400
A6-3400M
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 E3400 is positioned at rank 727 and the A6-3400M is on rank 869, so the Celeron E3400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E3400
Performance Per Dollar A6-3400M
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron E3400 | A6-3400M |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Wolfdale (2008−2010) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron E3400 | A6-3400M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ 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 E3400 and A6-3400M
Celeron E3400
The Celeron E3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 17 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 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: 1,220 points. Launch price was $76.
A6-3400M
The A6-3400M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,223 points. Launch price was $70.
Processing Power
The Celeron E3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the A6-3400M offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the A6-3400M has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron E3400 versus 2.3 GHz on the A6-3400M — a 12.2% clock advantage for the Celeron E3400 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 1.4 GHz). The Celeron E3400 uses the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the A6-3400M uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E3400 scores 1,220 against the A6-3400M's 1,223 — a 0.2% lead for the A6-3400M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 347 vs 218, a 45.7% lead for the Celeron E3400 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron E3400 | A6-3400M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.6 GHz+13% | 2.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.6 GHz+86% | 1.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (total) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 32 nm-29% |
| Architecture | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| PassMark | 1,220 | 1,223 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 347+59% | 218 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 624 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron E3400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the A6-3400M uses FS1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1066 on the Celeron E3400 versus DDR3-1333 on the A6-3400M — the Celeron E3400 supports 198.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron E3400) vs 16 (A6-3400M) — the A6-3400M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Celeron E3400 | A6-3400M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA775 | FS1 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | 1066+35433% | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 | 8 GB+104857500% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Celeron E3400) vs AMD-V (A6-3400M). The A6-3400M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6520G), while the Celeron E3400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3400 targets Budget, A6-3400M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron E3400 rivals Pentium E5200; A6-3400M rivals Core i3-2310M.
| Feature | Celeron E3400 | A6-3400M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Radeon HD 6520G |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | true | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Budget | Budget Laptop |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron E3400 and A6-3400M
