Celeron U3400 vs Turion 64 MT-40

Celeron U3400 vs Turion 64 MT-40 Performance Spectrum

Celeron U3400

2 / 2

575

0.0%

600

+4.3%

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 Turion 64 MT-40 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 Turion 64 MT-40: 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

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion 64 MT-40 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (575 vs 600).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Turion 64 MT-40 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1700% higher power demand at 18W vs 1W.

Turion 64 MT-40

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 18W, a 17W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 MT-40 better than Celeron U3400?

Yes. Turion 64 MT-40 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 4.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Turion 64 MT-40 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.6% 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, Turion 64 MT-40 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.3% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Turion 64 MT-40 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Turion 64 MT-40 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.6% 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 8.6% 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 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron U3400 vs Turion 64 MT-40 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.

Turion 64 MT-40

The Turion 64 MT-40 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 600 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron U3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Turion 64 MT-40 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 Turion 64 MT-40 — a 187.7% clock advantage for the Turion 64 MT-40. The Celeron U3400 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Turion 64 MT-40 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron U3400 scores 575 against the Turion 64 MT-40's 600 — a 4.3% lead for the Turion 64 MT-40. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron U3400 vs 0 kB on the Turion 64 MT-40.

Feature	Celeron U3400	Turion 64 MT-40
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-64%	90 nm
Architecture	Westmere (2010−2011)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	575	600+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion 64 MT-40 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.