Celeron M U3400 vs Pentium 997

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 Pentium 997 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 Pentium 997: 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

✅Costs $48 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Delivers 54.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.0 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,205 vs 1,215).
❌2911.8% higher power demand at 512W vs 17W.

Pentium 997

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 17W instead of 512W, a 495W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium 997 better than Celeron M U3400?

Yes. Pentium 997 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, 0.8% 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, Pentium 997 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, Pentium 997 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?

Pentium 997 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Pentium 997 comes in 55.8% more expensive on MSRP at $134 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% 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 0.1% in the shared gaming data.

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

Pentium 997 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010) 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 Pentium 997 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.

Pentium 997

The Pentium 997 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,215 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron M U3400 and Pentium 997 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 versus 1.6 GHz on the Pentium 997 — a 40.6% clock advantage for the Pentium 997. The Celeron M U3400 uses the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Pentium 997 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M U3400 scores 1,205 against the Pentium 997's 1,215 — a 0.8% lead for the Pentium 997. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron M U3400 vs 2 MB (total) on the Pentium 997.

Feature	Celeron M U3400	Pentium 997
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.06 GHz	1.6 GHz+51%
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Arrandale (2010−2011)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,205	1,215

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Pentium 997 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron M U3400	Pentium 997
Socket	BGA1288	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron M U3400 was priced at $86, while the Pentium 997 came in at $134. On launch pricing ($86 vs $134), Celeron M U3400 was $48 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron M U3400 delivers 14.0 pts/$ vs 9.1 pts/$ for the Pentium 997 — making the Celeron M U3400 the 42.8% better value option.

Feature	Celeron M U3400	Pentium 997
MSRP	$86-36%	$134
Performance per Dollar	14.0+54%	9.1
Release Date	2010	2012

Search Celeron M U3400 on Amazon

Search Pentium 997 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.