Celeron M U3400 vs Athlon II X2 255
Celeron M U3400
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 M U3400 is positioned at rank 998 and the Athlon II X2 255 is on rank 793, so the Athlon II X2 255 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron M U3400
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X2 255
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron M U3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Arrandale (2010−2011) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron M U3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+99%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($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 M U3400 and Athlon II X2 255
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.
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 M U3400 and Athlon II X2 255 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 versus 3.1 GHz on the Athlon II X2 255 — a 98.1% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 255. The Celeron M U3400 uses the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon II X2 255 uses Regor (2009−2013) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M U3400 scores 1,205 against the Athlon II X2 255's 1,210 — a 0.4% lead for the Athlon II X2 255. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron M U3400 vs 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 255.
| Feature | Celeron M U3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.06 GHz | 3.1 GHz+192% |
| Base Clock | — | 3.1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 1 MB+100% |
| Process | 32 nm-29% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,205 | 1,210 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 265 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 500 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron M U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon II X2 255 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Celeron M U3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1288 | AM3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 16 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 2 |
| ECC Support | — | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Celeron M U3400) / AMD-V (Athlon II X2 255). Primary use case: Athlon II X2 255 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 255 rivals Pentium E5700.
| Feature | Celeron M U3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Legacy Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Celeron M U3400 launched at $86 MSRP, while the Athlon II X2 255 debuted at $60. At current prices ($5 vs $10), the Celeron M U3400 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron M U3400 delivers 241.0 pts/$ vs 121.0 pts/$ for the Athlon II X2 255 — making the Celeron M U3400 the 66.3% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron M U3400 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $86 | $60-30% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $5-50% | $10 |
| Performance per Dollar | 241.0+99% | 121.0 |
| 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 M U3400 and Athlon II X2 255
