Celeron U3400 vs Opteron 248

Celeron U3400 vs Opteron 248 Performance Spectrum

Celeron U3400

2 / 2

575

0.0%

585

+1.7%

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 248 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 248: 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

✅Draws 18W instead of 89W, a 71W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Opteron 248 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (575 vs 585).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Opteron 248 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Opteron 248

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌394.4% higher power demand at 89W vs 18W.

Quick Answers

So, is Opteron 248 better than Celeron U3400?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 248 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 gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Opteron 248 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.8% 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, Opteron 248 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.7% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Opteron 248 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Opteron 248 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron U3400 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 8.8% in the shared gaming data.

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 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron U3400 vs Opteron 248 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 248

The Opteron 248 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Novembro 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 585 points. Launch price was $12.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron U3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Opteron 248 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 248 — a 187.7% clock advantage for the Opteron 248. The Celeron U3400 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Opteron 248 uses SledgeHammer (2003−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron U3400 scores 575 against the Opteron 248's 585 — a 1.7% lead for the Opteron 248. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron U3400 vs 0 kB on the Opteron 248.

Feature	Celeron U3400	Opteron 248
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	1 MB+100%
Process	32 nm-75%	130 nm
Architecture	Westmere (2010−2011)	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
PassMark	575	585+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Opteron 248 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.