Celeron J3355 vs Celeron M U3400

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 J3355 vs Celeron M U3400 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 J3355 vs Celeron M U3400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J3355

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 512W, a 502W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 500, while Celeron M U3400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,203 vs 1,205).

Celeron M U3400

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron J3355 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌5020% higher power demand at 512W vs 10W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J3355 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J3355 better than Celeron M U3400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron J3355 is ahead with a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M U3400 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M U3400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J3355 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron J3355 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M U3400 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 2.1% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron J3355 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron J3355 vs Celeron M U3400 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J3355

The Celeron J3355 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,203 points. Launch price was $107.

Celeron M U3400

The Celeron M U3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.06 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,205 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron J3355 and Celeron M U3400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the Celeron J3355 versus 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 — a 80.9% clock advantage for the Celeron J3355. The Celeron J3355 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron M U3400 uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J3355 scores 1,203 against the Celeron M U3400's 1,205 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron M U3400. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron J3355 vs 2 MB on the Celeron M U3400.

Feature	Celeron J3355	Celeron M U3400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+136%	1.06 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,203	1,205
Geekbench 6 Single	450	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	850	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J3355 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron M U3400 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J3355	Celeron M U3400
Socket	FCBGA1296	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	6	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron J3355) / not specified (Celeron M U3400). The Celeron J3355 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 500), while the Celeron M U3400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3355 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J3355 rivals Pentium J4205.