Celeron M U3400 vs Turion 64 ML-28

Celeron M U3400 vs Turion 64 ML-28 Performance Spectrum

Celeron M U3400

2 / 2

1,205

+0.3%

Atom E3827

Celeron 877

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

1,201

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Celeron M U3400 vs Turion 64 ML-28 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 Turion 64 ML-28: 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

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Turion 64 ML-28 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion 64 ML-28

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,201 vs 1,205).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron M U3400 better than Turion 64 ML-28?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Turion 64 ML-28 is ahead with a 1.5% 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 0.3% 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 0.3% 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 $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Turion 64 ML-28 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (14.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2005) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron M U3400 vs Turion 64 ML-28 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.

Turion 64 ML-28

The Turion 64 ML-28 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,201 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M U3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Turion 64 ML-28 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron M U3400 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.06 GHz on the Celeron M U3400 versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 ML-28 — a 40.6% clock advantage for the Turion 64 ML-28. The Celeron M U3400 uses the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-28 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M U3400 scores 1,205 against the Turion 64 ML-28's 1,201 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron M U3400. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron M U3400 vs 0 kB on the Turion 64 ML-28.

Feature	Celeron M U3400	Turion 64 ML-28
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.06 GHz	1.6 GHz+51%
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	32 nm-64%	90 nm
Architecture	Arrandale (2010−2011)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	1,205	1,201

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion 64 ML-28 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.