Celeron U3400 vs Athlon 64 3500+
Celeron U3400
Athlon 64 3500+
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron U3400 is positioned at rank 1172 and the Athlon 64 3500+ is on rank 1102, so the Athlon 64 3500+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron U3400
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3500+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron U3400 | Athlon 64 3500+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Westmere (2010−2011) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (San Diego (2001−2005) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron U3400 | Athlon 64 3500+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+102%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron U3400 and Athlon 64 3500+
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.
Athlon 64 3500+
The Athlon 64 3500+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 570 points. Launch price was $59.
Processing Power
The Celeron U3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon 64 3500+ offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron U3400 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 0.07 GHz on the Celeron U3400 versus 2.2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3500+ — a 187.7% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3500+. The Celeron U3400 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon 64 3500+ uses San Diego (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron U3400 scores 575 against the Athlon 64 3500+'s 570 — a 0.9% lead for the Celeron U3400. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron U3400 vs 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3500+.
| Feature | Celeron U3400 | Athlon 64 3500+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2+100% | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 0.07 GHz | 2.2 GHz+3043% |
| Base Clock | 1.06 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 512 kB |
| Process | 32 nm-75% | 130 nm |
| Architecture | Westmere (2010−2011) | San Diego (2001−2005) |
| PassMark | 575 | 570 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon 64 3500+ uses 939 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Celeron U3400 | Athlon 64 3500+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1288 | 939 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 2 |
| ECC Support | — | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 0 |
Value Analysis
The Celeron U3400 launched at $86 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 3500+ debuted at $272. At current prices ($5 vs $10), the Celeron U3400 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron U3400 delivers 115.0 pts/$ vs 57.0 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 3500+ — making the Celeron U3400 the 67.4% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron U3400 | Athlon 64 3500+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $86-68% | $272 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $5-50% | $10 |
| Performance per Dollar | 115.0+102% | 57.0 |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2001 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron U3400 and Athlon 64 3500+
