CPU
GPU
Celeron E3400
Athlon II X2 255
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 Athlon II X2 255 is on rank 793, 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 Athlon II X2 255
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron E3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Wolfdale (2008−2010) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron E3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+49%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
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 Athlon II X2 255
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.
Athlon II X2 255
The Athlon II X2 255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 25 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,210 points. Launch price was $60.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron E3400 and Athlon II X2 255 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron E3400 versus 3.1 GHz on the Athlon II X2 255 — a 17.5% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 255 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Celeron E3400 uses the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Athlon II X2 255 uses Regor (2009−2013) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E3400 scores 1,220 against the Athlon II X2 255's 1,210 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron E3400. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 347 vs 265, a 26.8% lead for the Celeron E3400 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 624 vs 500 (22.1% advantage for the Celeron E3400). Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron E3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.6 GHz | 3.1 GHz+19% |
| Base Clock | 2.6 GHz | 3.1 GHz+19% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (total) | 1 MB |
| Process | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,220 | 1,210 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 347+31% | 265 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 624+25% | 500 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron E3400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon II X2 255 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1066 on the Celeron E3400 versus DDR3-1333 on the Athlon II X2 255 — the Celeron E3400 supports 198.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon II X2 255 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. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: G31,G41,P35,P45 (Celeron E3400) and 760G,780G,785G,790GX,870,880G,890GX,890FX (Athlon II X2 255).
| Feature | Celeron E3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA775 | AM3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | 1066+35433% | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 | 16 GB+209715100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Celeron E3400) vs AMD-V (Athlon II X2 255). Primary use case: Celeron E3400 targets Budget, Athlon II X2 255 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron E3400 rivals Pentium E5200; Athlon II X2 255 rivals Pentium E5700.
| Feature | Celeron E3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | true | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Budget | Legacy Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Celeron E3400 launched at $53 MSRP, while the Athlon II X2 255 debuted at $60. At current prices ($15 vs $10), the Athlon II X2 255 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E3400 delivers 81.3 pts/$ vs 121.0 pts/$ for the Athlon II X2 255 — making the Athlon II X2 255 the 39.2% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron E3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $53-12% | $60 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $10-33% |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.3 | 121.0+49% |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2010 |
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 Athlon II X2 255
