Celeron E3400 vs Core i3-3217U

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 E3400 vs Core i3-3217U 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 E3400 vs Core i3-3217U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron E3400

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Core i3-3217U.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,220 vs 1,226).
❌Launch MSRP is still $53 MSRP, while Core i3-3217U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-3217U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i3-3217U

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 4000, while Celeron E3400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron E3400.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E3400 better than Core i3-3217U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron E3400 is ahead with a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-3217U pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-3217U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron E3400 is the better buy right now. Celeron E3400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $53 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core i3-3217U is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.5% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (23.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i3-3217U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron E3400 vs Core i3-3217U Technical Specifications

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

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.

Core i3-3217U

The Core i3-3217U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,226 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron E3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-3217U's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron E3400 versus 1.8 GHz on the Core i3-3217U — a 36.4% clock advantage for the Celeron E3400 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Celeron E3400 uses the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Core i3-3217U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E3400 scores 1,220 against the Core i3-3217U's 1,226 — a 0.5% lead for the Core i3-3217U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron E3400 vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3217U.

Feature	Celeron E3400	Core i3-3217U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+44%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.6 GHz+44%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Wolfdale (2008−2010)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,220	1,226
Geekbench 6 Single	347	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	624	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E3400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i3-3217U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1066 on the Celeron E3400 versus 1600 on the Core i3-3217U — the Core i3-3217U supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i3-3217U supports up to 32 of RAM compared to 8 — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron E3400) vs 16 (Core i3-3217U) — the Core i3-3217U offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: G31,G41,P35,P45 (Celeron E3400) and HM76,UM77,QM77,QS77 (Core i3-3217U).

Feature	Celeron E3400	Core i3-3217U
Socket	LGA775	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	1066	1600+50%
Max RAM Capacity	8	32+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support true virtualization. The Core i3-3217U includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 4000), while the Celeron E3400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E3400 rivals Pentium E5200; Core i3-3217U rivals AMD A6-4455M.