Celeron M U3400 vs Celeron N3160

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 N3160 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 N3160: 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 N3160 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3160 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, while Celeron M U3400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,195 vs 1,205).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3160 better than Celeron M U3400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N3160 is ahead with a 1.9% 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 N3160 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron N3160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% 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 1.9% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron N3160 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 M U3400 vs Celeron N3160 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 N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M U3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 — a 71.5% clock advantage for the Celeron N3160. The Celeron M U3400 uses the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N3160 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M U3400 scores 1,205 against the Celeron N3160'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 N3160.

Feature	Celeron M U3400	Celeron N3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.06 GHz	2.24 GHz+111%
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	2 MB+300%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Arrandale (2010−2011)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,205	1,195

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3160 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron M U3400	Celeron N3160
Socket	BGA1288	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	—	1600
Max RAM Capacity	—	8
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron M U3400) / true (Celeron N3160). The Celeron N3160 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Celeron M U3400 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.