Celeron U3400 vs Opteron 148

Celeron U3400 vs Opteron 148 Performance Spectrum

Celeron U3400

2 / 2

575

+4.9%

548

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 Opteron 148 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 Opteron 148: 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

✅+4.9% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 18W instead of 85W, a 67W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Opteron 148 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Opteron 148

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (548 vs 575).
❌372.2% higher power demand at 85W vs 18W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron U3400 better than Opteron 148?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 148 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron U3400 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

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 4.9% 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 $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 4.9% better PassMark. The compromise is that Opteron 148 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (6.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 Opteron 148 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.

Opteron 148

The Opteron 148 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 548 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron U3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Opteron 148 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 Opteron 148 — a 187.7% clock advantage for the Opteron 148 (base: 1.06 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Celeron U3400 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Opteron 148 uses SledgeHammer (2003−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron U3400 scores 575 against the Opteron 148's 548 — a 4.8% lead for the Celeron U3400. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron U3400 vs 0 kB on the Opteron 148.

Feature	Celeron U3400	Opteron 148
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	0.07 GHz	2.2 GHz+3043%
Base Clock	1.06 GHz	2.2 GHz+108%
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	32 nm-75%	130 nm
Architecture	Westmere (2010−2011)	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
PassMark	575+5%	548

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Opteron 148 uses 939 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.