Celeron M U3400 vs Core 2 Duo T9900

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 Core 2 Duo T9900 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 Core 2 Duo T9900: 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

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 6 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core 2 Duo T9900 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Core 2 Duo T9900

2009

Why buy it

✅+200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,204 vs 1,205).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron M U3400 better than Core 2 Duo T9900?

Yes. Celeron M U3400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron M U3400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron M U3400 is the better buy right now. Celeron M U3400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (14.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron M U3400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron M U3400 vs Core 2 Duo T9900 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.

Core 2 Duo T9900

The Core 2 Duo T9900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 June 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.06 GHz, with boost up to 0.07 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,204 points. Launch price was $530.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron M U3400 and Core 2 Duo T9900 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 versus 0.07 GHz on the Core 2 Duo T9900 — a 175.2% clock advantage for the Celeron M U3400. The Celeron M U3400 uses the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Duo T9900 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M U3400 scores 1,205 against the Core 2 Duo T9900's 1,204 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron M U3400. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron M U3400 vs 6 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Duo T9900.

Feature	Celeron M U3400	Core 2 Duo T9900
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.06 GHz+1414%	0.07 GHz
Base Clock	—	3.06 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB	6 MB L2 Cache+200%
L2 Cache	512 kB	6 MB (total)+1100%
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Arrandale (2010−2011)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,205	1,204

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core 2 Duo T9900 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.