
Celeron G3950

Pentium G4400T
Celeron G3950 vs Pentium G4400T Performance Spectrum
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.
Celeron G3950 vs Pentium G4400T 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Celeron G3950 vs Pentium G4400T: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Celeron G3950
2017Why buy it
- ✅Costs $12 less on MSRP ($52 MSRP vs $64 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 23.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 44.9 vs 36.3 PassMark/$ ($52 MSRP vs $64 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 610, while Pentium G4400T needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 3 MB).
- ❌45.7% higher power demand at 51W vs 35W.
Pentium G4400T
2015Why buy it
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 51W, a 16W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (2,323 vs 2,336).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 36.3 vs 44.9 PassMark/$ ($64 MSRP vs $52 MSRP).
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G3950 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron G3950 better than Pentium G4400T?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Celeron G3950 vs Pentium G4400T Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron G3950
The Celeron G3950 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 51 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 2133, DDR3L 1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 2,336 points. Launch price was $52.

Pentium G4400T
The Pentium G4400T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1866/2133, DDR3L-1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 2,323 points. Launch price was $64.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron G3950 and Pentium G4400T share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Celeron G3950 versus 2.9 GHz on the Pentium G4400T — a 3.4% clock advantage for the Celeron G3950 (base: 3 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Celeron G3950 uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Pentium G4400T uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G3950 scores 2,336 against the Pentium G4400T's 2,323 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron G3950. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G3950 vs 3 MB on the Pentium G4400T.
| Feature | Celeron G3950 | Pentium G4400T |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3 GHz+3% | 2.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3 GHz+3% | 2.9 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 3 MB+50% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512 kB+100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| PassMark | 2,336 | 2,323 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 750 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 1,100 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the LGA1151 socket with PCIe 3.0.
| Feature | Celeron G3950 | Pentium G4400T |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | LGA1151 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2400 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 64 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | Yes | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron G3950) / not specified (Pentium G4400T). The Celeron G3950 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 610), while the Pentium G4400T requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3950 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G3950 rivals Pentium G4560.
| Feature | Celeron G3950 | Pentium G4400T |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | — |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics 610 | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Celeron G3950 was priced at $52, while the Pentium G4400T came in at $64. On launch pricing ($52 vs $64), Celeron G3950 was $12 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron G3950 delivers 44.9 pts/$ vs 36.3 pts/$ for the Pentium G4400T — making the Celeron G3950 the 21.2% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron G3950 | Pentium G4400T |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $52-19% | $64 |
| Performance per Dollar | 44.9+24% | 36.3 |
| Release Date | 2017 | 2015 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














