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 i7-9700K 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 i7-9700K: 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

✅Costs $332 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Core i7-9700K.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,220 vs 14,397).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 23.0 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +660.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 62.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 23.0 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Celeron E3400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌
626.4% HIGHER MSRP
$385 MSRPvs$53 MSRP
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron E3400.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-9700K better than Celeron E3400?

Yes. Core i7-9700K is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 660.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1080.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-9700K is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 660.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-9700K is the stronger fit. You are getting 1080.1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core i7-9700K is the better buy right now. Core i7-9700K comes in 626.4% more expensive on MSRP at $385 MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you a 660.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 62.5% better value on MSRP (37.4 vs 23.0 PassMark/$), 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 i7-9700K makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 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 i7-9700K 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 i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron E3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core i7-9700K offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the Core i7-9700K has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron E3400 versus 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K — a 61.3% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 2.6 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Celeron E3400 uses the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Core i7-9700K uses Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E3400 scores 1,220 against the Core i7-9700K's 14,397 — a 168.8% lead for the Core i7-9700K. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron E3400 vs 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K.

Feature	Celeron E3400	Core i7-9700K
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	8 / 8+300%
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz	4.9 GHz+88%
Base Clock	2.6 GHz	3.6 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	0 kB	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	45 nm	14 nm-69%
Architecture	Wolfdale (2008−2010)	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
PassMark	1,220	14,397+1080%
Geekbench 6 Single	347	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	624	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E3400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i7-9700K uses LGA1151 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1066 on the Celeron E3400 versus DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K — the Core i7-9700K supports 150.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-9700K supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron E3400) vs 16 (Core i7-9700K) — the Core i7-9700K offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: G31,G41,P35,P45 (Celeron E3400) and Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K).

Feature	Celeron E3400	Core i7-9700K
Socket	LGA775	LGA1151
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	1066	DDR4-2666+150%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	128 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i7-9700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: true (Celeron E3400) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Celeron E3400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3400 targets Budget, Core i7-9700K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron E3400 rivals Pentium E5200.

Feature	Celeron E3400	Core i7-9700K
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	UHD Graphics 630
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	true	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Budget	Desktop

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron E3400 was priced at $53, while the Core i7-9700K came in at $385. On launch pricing ($53 vs $385), Celeron E3400 was $332 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E3400 delivers 23.0 pts/$ vs 37.4 pts/$ for the Core i7-9700K — making the Core i7-9700K the 47.6% better value option.

Feature	Celeron E3400	Core i7-9700K
MSRP	$53-86%	$385
Performance per Dollar	23.0	37.4+63%
Release Date	2010	2018

Search Celeron E3400 on Amazon

Search Core i7-9700K on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.