Celeron E3400
VS
A6-5357M

Celeron E3400 vs A6-5357M

Intel

Celeron E3400

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 2.6 GHz2010
VS
AMD

A6-5357M

2 Cores2 Thrd35 WWMax: 3.5 GHz2013

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 A6-5357M is on rank 872, so the Celeron E3400 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 E3400

#1
Ryzen 9 7950X
MSRP: $194|Avg: $20
13541%
#2
Core i9-10900T
MSRP: $120|Avg: $5
12795%
#3
Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE
MSRP: $423|Avg: $5
9290%
#4
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85
2799%
#5
Ryzen 9 9950X
MSRP: $649|Avg: $129
2217%
#6
Ryzen 5 8400F
MSRP: $303|Avg: $55
1939%
#7
Ryzen 7 PRO 2700
MSRP: $299|Avg: $60
1111%
#8
Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP: $229|Avg: $55
1096%
#9
Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G
MSRP: $150|Avg: $60
998%
#10
Core Ultra 5 245KF
MSRP: $294|Avg: $189
998%
#11
Ryzen 5 5500
MSRP: $159|Avg: $85
987%
#12
Ryzen 5 3600
MSRP: $199|Avg: $80
960%
#13
Core i3-9100E
MSRP: $202|Avg: $30
947%
#14
Core Ultra 5 245K
MSRP: $319|Avg: $200
943%
#15
Core i3-8300T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $25
934%
#727
Celeron E3400
MSRP: $53|Avg: $15
100%
#728
FX-4100
MSRP: $115|Avg: $20
99%
#729
Core i5-7440EQ
MSRP: $250|Avg: $30
99%
#730
Core i5-3350P
MSRP: $189|Avg: $25
99%
#732
Core i3-4350T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $20
99%
#733
Athlon II X4 641
MSRP: $102|Avg: $102
99%
#734
Athlon II X3 460
MSRP: $87|Avg: $15
98%
#735
Pentium G2100T
MSRP: $75|Avg: $10
98%
#736
Core i5-3330
MSRP: $182|Avg: $21
98%
#737
Core i3-4330T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $15
98%
#738
Pentium E5300
MSRP: $62|Avg: $25
98%
#739
Athlon II X2 215
MSRP: $45|Avg: $10
98%
#740
Core i7-4790S
MSRP: $312|Avg: $60
97%
#741
FX-6100
MSRP: $165|Avg: $25
97%
#742
Pentium G2020T
MSRP: $64|Avg: $69
97%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar A6-5357M

#860
Atom x5-Z8300
MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A
1444%
#861
Atom Z3735G
MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A
1423%
#862
Core i5-480M
MSRP: $81|Avg: $77
1306%
#863
Core i5-460M
MSRP: $80|Avg: $129
1300%
#864
Core i5-2540M
MSRP: $266|Avg: $10
1288%
#866
Core i5-450M
MSRP: $32|Avg: $31
1244%
#867
Core i3-380M
MSRP: $49|Avg: $25
1193%
#868
Core i5-430M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33
1191%
#869
Core 2 Duo T6600
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4
1159%
#872
A6-5357M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#873
Celeron M 540
MSRP: $86|Avg: $20
100%
#877
Microsoft SQ1
MSRP: $300|Avg: $180
99%
#879
Core i5-6440HQ
MSRP: $250|Avg: N/A
99%
#882
Celeron Dual-Core T1600
MSRP: $150|Avg: $150
98%
#884
Athlon II N330
MSRP: $100|Avg: $50
98%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The A6-5357M leads in gaming performance. However, the Celeron E3400 is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 0.1% greater multi-core processing power.
InsightCeleron E3400A6-5357M
Gaming
Lower gaming performance
Superior gaming performance
Workstation
Better multi-core power
Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price
⚠️ Higher cost ($15)
More affordable ($0)
Longevity
🛑 Legacy (Wolfdale (2008−2010) / 45 nm)
🛑 Legacy (Richland (2013−2014) / 32 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

InsightCeleron E3400A6-5357M
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost
⚠️ Higher cost ($15)
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 E3400 and A6-5357M

Intel

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.

AMD

A6-5357M

The A6-5357M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Richland (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FP2. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,219 points. Launch price was $70.

Processing Power

Both the Celeron E3400 and A6-5357M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron E3400 versus 3.5 GHz on the A6-5357M — a 29.5% clock advantage for the A6-5357M (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Celeron E3400 uses the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the A6-5357M uses Richland (2013−2014) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E3400 scores 1,220 against the A6-5357M's 1,219 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron E3400. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 347 vs 380, a 9.1% lead for the A6-5357M that directly translates to higher frame rates. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

FeatureCeleron E3400A6-5357M
Cores / Threads
2 / 2
2 / 2
Boost Clock
2.6 GHz
3.5 GHz+35%
Base Clock
2.6 GHz
2.9 GHz+12%
L3 Cache
0 kB
0 kB
L2 Cache
1 MB (total)+100%
512K (per core)
Process
45 nm
32 nm-29%
Architecture
Wolfdale (2008−2010)
Richland (2013−2014)
PassMark
1,220
1,219
Geekbench 6 Single
347
380+10%
Geekbench 6 Multi
624
🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E3400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the A6-5357M uses FP2 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1066 on the Celeron E3400 versus DDR3-1600 on the A6-5357M — the Celeron E3400 supports 198.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-5357M supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron E3400) vs 16 (A6-5357M) — the A6-5357M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

FeatureCeleron E3400A6-5357M
Socket
LGA775
FP2
PCIe Generation
PCIe 1.1
PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed
1066+35433%
DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity
8
16 GB+209715100%
RAM Channels
2
2
ECC Support
PCIe Lanes
0
16
🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Celeron E3400) vs AMD-V (A6-5357M). The A6-5357M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8450G), while the Celeron E3400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3400 targets Budget, A6-5357M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron E3400 rivals Pentium E5200; A6-5357M rivals Core i3-3120M.

FeatureCeleron E3400A6-5357M
Integrated GPU
No
Yes
IGPU Model
Radeon HD 8450G
Unlocked
No
No
AVX-512
No
No
Virtualization
true
AMD-V
Target Use
Budget
Budget Laptop