Celeron U3400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

Celeron U3400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron U3400

2 / 2

575

+5.5%

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

1 / 1

545

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 U3400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 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 U3400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron U3400

2010

Why buy it

✅+5.5% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1700% higher power demand at 18W vs 1W.

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

2005

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 18W, a 17W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (545 vs 575).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron U3400 better than Mobile Athlon 64 3400+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is ahead with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron U3400 pulls ahead with 5.5% better PassMark.

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.

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

Celeron U3400 is the better buy right now. Celeron U3400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 5.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (6.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 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 U3400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ Technical Specifications

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

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.

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

The Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2005 (20 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron U3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 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 Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ — a 187.7% clock advantage for the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+. The Celeron U3400 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ uses Clawhammer (2001−2005). In PassMark, the Celeron U3400 scores 575 against the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+'s 545 — a 5.4% lead for the Celeron U3400.

Feature	Celeron U3400	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
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	—
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	32 nm	—
Architecture	Westmere (2010−2011)	Clawhammer (2001−2005)
PassMark	575+6%	545

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron U3400	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
Socket	BGA1288	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	—	400
Max RAM Capacity	—	2
RAM Channels	—	1
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron U3400) / false (Mobile Athlon 64 3400+). Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ rivals Pentium M 735.