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 SU2300 vs Celeron U3400 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 SU2300 vs Celeron U3400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron SU2300

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 18W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (545 vs 575).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 2 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.1 vs 6.7 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Celeron U3400

2010

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB).
✅Costs $48 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Delivers 64.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 6.7 vs 4.1 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌80% higher power demand at 18W vs 10W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron U3400 better than Celeron SU2300?

Yes. Celeron U3400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.5% 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 U3400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.5% 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 U3400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB).

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

Celeron U3400 is the better buy right now. Celeron U3400 comes in $48 cheaper on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 64.4% better value on MSRP (6.7 vs 4.1 PassMark/$), 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 U3400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2009) and 100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron SU2300 vs Celeron U3400 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron SU2300

The Celeron SU2300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron U3400

The Celeron U3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.06 GHz, with boost up to 0.07 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 575 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron U3400 is built on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron SU2300 scores 545 against the Celeron U3400's 575 — a 5.4% lead for the Celeron U3400. L3 cache: 1 MB on the Celeron SU2300 vs 2 MB on the Celeron U3400.

Feature	Celeron SU2300	Celeron U3400
Cores / Threads	—	2 / 2
Boost Clock	—	0.07 GHz
Base Clock	1.2 GHz+13%	1.06 GHz
L3 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
L2 Cache	—	512 kB
Process	45 nm	32 nm-29%
Architecture	—	Westmere (2010−2011)
PassMark	545	575+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron SU2300 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron U3400 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron SU2300	Celeron U3400
Socket	BGA956	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron SU2300 was priced at $134, while the Celeron U3400 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($134 vs $86), Celeron U3400 was $48 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron SU2300 delivers 4.1 pts/$ vs 6.7 pts/$ for the Celeron U3400 — making the Celeron U3400 the 48.7% better value option.

Feature	Celeron SU2300	Celeron U3400
MSRP	$134	$86-36%
Performance per Dollar	4.1	6.7+63%
Release Date	2009	2010

Search Celeron SU2300 on Amazon

Search Celeron U3400 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.