Core 2 Duo E4400
VS
Celeron 3215U

Core 2 Duo E4400 vs Celeron 3215U

Intel

Core 2 Duo E4400

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 2 GHz2007
VS
Intel

Celeron 3215U

2 Cores2 Thrd512 WWMax: 1.7 GHz2015

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 Core 2 Duo E4400 is positioned at rank 1001 and the Celeron 3215U is on rank 241, so the Celeron 3215U offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Duo E4400

#1
Ryzen 9 7950X
MSRP: $194|Avg: $20
32169%
#2
Core i9-10900T
MSRP: $120|Avg: $5
30396%
#3
Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE
MSRP: $423|Avg: $5
22070%
#4
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85
6649%
#5
Ryzen 9 9950X
MSRP: $649|Avg: $129
5267%
#6
Ryzen 5 8400F
MSRP: $303|Avg: $55
4607%
#7
Ryzen 7 PRO 2700
MSRP: $299|Avg: $60
2639%
#8
Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP: $229|Avg: $55
2604%
#9
Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G
MSRP: $150|Avg: $60
2371%
#10
Core Ultra 5 245KF
MSRP: $294|Avg: $189
2371%
#11
Ryzen 5 5500
MSRP: $159|Avg: $85
2345%
#12
Ryzen 5 3600
MSRP: $199|Avg: $80
2281%
#13
Core i3-9100E
MSRP: $202|Avg: $30
2249%
#14
Core Ultra 5 245K
MSRP: $319|Avg: $200
2240%
#15
Core i3-8300T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $25
2220%
#1001
Core 2 Duo E4400
MSRP: $113|Avg: $20
100%
#1002
Pentium D 915
MSRP: $74|Avg: $10
98%
#1003
Core 2 Quad Q9400
MSRP: $229|Avg: $25
97%
#1004
Core i5-655K
MSRP: $216|Avg: $55
96%
#1005
Celeron 450
MSRP: $53|Avg: $5
96%
#1006
Core 2 Duo E4600
MSRP: $133|Avg: $9.6
96%
#1008
Core i7-870S
MSRP: $300|Avg: $80
95%
#1009
Core 2 Duo E6540
MSRP: $163|Avg: $15
95%
#1010
Celeron 430
MSRP: $49|Avg: $10
94%
#1011
Athlon X2 BE-2300
MSRP: $100|Avg: $80
93%
#1012
Core i7-875K
MSRP: $353|Avg: $175
93%
#1013
Core i5-670
MSRP: $284|Avg: $100
93%
#1014
Core i5-680
MSRP: $294|Avg: $10
92%
#1015
Core 2 Duo E4300
MSRP: $113|Avg: $5
92%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 3215U

#64
Ryzen AI Max PRO 390
MSRP: $600|Avg: $600
99%
#229
Atom x5-Z8300
MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A
403%
#230
Atom Z3735G
MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A
397%
#231
Core i5-480M
MSRP: $81|Avg: $77
365%
#232
Core i5-460M
MSRP: $80|Avg: $129
363%
#233
Core i5-2540M
MSRP: $266|Avg: $10
360%
#235
Core i5-450M
MSRP: $32|Avg: $31
348%
#236
Core i3-380M
MSRP: $49|Avg: $25
333%
#237
Core i5-430M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33
333%
#238
Core 2 Duo T6600
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4
324%
#241
Celeron 3215U
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Generational Difference: This comparison involves processors from different technological eras. The Celeron 3215U (2015) utilizes 14 nm technology and DDR3, providing a fundamental performance advantage.
InsightCore 2 Duo E4400Celeron 3215U
Gaming
Lower gaming performance
Superior gaming performance
Workstation
Better multi-core power
Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price
⚠️ Higher cost ($20)
More affordable ($0)
Longevity
🛑 Legacy (Allendale (2006−2009) / 65 nm)
🛑 Legacy (Broadwell (2015−2019) / 14 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

The Core 2 Duo E4400 (2007) relies on 65 nm technology and DDR1, DDR2, DDR3, placing it in a different performance category relative to modern standards.
InsightCore 2 Duo E4400Celeron 3215U
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost
⚠️ Higher cost ($20)
More affordable ($0)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

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 Core 2 Duo E4400 and Celeron 3215U

Intel

Core 2 Duo E4400

The Core 2 Duo E4400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,095 points. Launch price was $249.

Intel

Celeron 3215U

The Celeron 3215U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,091 points. Launch price was $107.

Processing Power

Both the Core 2 Duo E4400 and Celeron 3215U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Core 2 Duo E4400 versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3215U — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Core 2 Duo E4400 (base: 2 GHz vs 1.7 GHz). The Core 2 Duo E4400 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 3215U uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo E4400 scores 1,095 against the Celeron 3215U's 1,091 — a 0.4% lead for the Core 2 Duo E4400. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 208 vs 339, a 47.9% lead for the Celeron 3215U that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Core 2 Duo E4400 vs 2 MB on the Celeron 3215U.

FeatureCore 2 Duo E4400Celeron 3215U
Cores / Threads
2 / 2
2 / 2
Boost Clock
2 GHz+18%
1.7 GHz
Base Clock
2 GHz+18%
1.7 GHz
L3 Cache
0 kB
2 MB
L2 Cache
2 MB+300%
512 kB
Process
65 nm
14 nm-78%
Architecture
Allendale (2006−2009)
Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark
1,095
1,091
Geekbench 6 Single
208
339+63%
🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Duo E4400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 3215U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-1066 on the Core 2 Duo E4400 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3215U — the Celeron 3215U supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Core 2 Duo E4400) vs 12 (Celeron 3215U) — the Celeron 3215U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: RS600,Q965 (Core 2 Duo E4400) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3215U).

FeatureCore 2 Duo E4400Celeron 3215U
Socket
LGA775
FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation
PCIe 1.1
PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed
DDR2-1066
DDR3L-1600+50%
Max RAM Capacity
16 GB
16 GB
RAM Channels
2
2
ECC Support
PCIe Lanes
0
12
🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: None (Core 2 Duo E4400) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3215U). The Celeron 3215U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Core 2 Duo E4400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Duo E4400 targets Budget, Celeron 3215U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Core 2 Duo E4400 rivals Athlon II X2 240; Celeron 3215U rivals Pentium 3825U.

FeatureCore 2 Duo E4400Celeron 3215U
Integrated GPU
No
Yes
IGPU Model
HD Graphics (Broadwell)
Unlocked
No
No
AVX-512
No
No
Virtualization
None
VT-x, VT-d
Target Use
Budget
Budget