Celeron M U3400 vs Celeron N2806

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 M U3400 vs Celeron N2806 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 M U3400 vs Celeron N2806: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron M U3400

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron N2806 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.

Celeron N2806

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,195 vs 1,205).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2806 better than Celeron M U3400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2806 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 0.8% 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 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2806 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron N2806 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 N2806 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron M U3400 vs Celeron N2806 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Celeron N2806

The Celeron N2806 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron M U3400 and Celeron N2806 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron N2806 — a 61.4% clock advantage for the Celeron N2806. The Celeron M U3400 uses the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N2806 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M U3400 scores 1,205 against the Celeron N2806's 1,195 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron M U3400. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron M U3400 vs 0 kB on the Celeron N2806.

Feature	Celeron M U3400	Celeron N2806
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.06 GHz	2 GHz+89%
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512K (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Arrandale (2010−2011)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,205	1,195

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N2806 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.