Celeron N3450 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86

Celeron N3450 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N3450

4 / 4

1,981

+0.8%

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86

2 / 2

1,965

0.0%

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 N3450 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 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 N3450 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3450

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 500, while Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌200% higher power demand at 6W vs 2W.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 6W, a 4W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,965 vs 1,981).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3450 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3450 better than Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 is ahead with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3450 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 N3450 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3450 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3450 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N3450 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N3450 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3450

The Celeron N3450 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,981 points. Launch price was $107.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86

The Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Griffin (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g2. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,965 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N3450 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N3450 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron N3450 versus 2.4 GHz on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86. The Celeron N3450 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 uses Griffin (2008−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3450 scores 1,981 against the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86's 1,965 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron N3450. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N3450	Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	2.4 GHz+9%
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB
Process	14 nm-78%	65 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Griffin (2008−2009)
PassMark	1,981	1,965

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3450 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 uses S1g2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 2400 on the Celeron N3450 versus DDR2-800 on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 — the Celeron N3450 supports 200% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N3450 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 6 (Celeron N3450) vs 0 (Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86) — the Celeron N3450 offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Celeron N3450	Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86
Socket	FCBGA1296	S1g2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	2400+200%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	6	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Celeron N3450) vs AMD-V (Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86). The Celeron N3450 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 500), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron N3450 rivals AMD A4-9120.