Celeron M 370 vs A4-3400
Aggregate performance score
A4-3400 outperforms Celeron M 370 by a whopping 360% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A4-3400 and Celeron M 370 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2732 | 3317 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 1.00 | 0.68 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 7 September 2011 (13 years ago) | no data |
Detailed specifications
A4-3400 and Celeron M 370 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 400 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.004V-1.292V |
Compatibility
Information on A4-3400 and Celeron M 370 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | no data |
| Socket | FM1 | H-PBGA478,H-PBGA479,PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 21 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3400 and Celeron M 370. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
A4-3400 and Celeron M 370 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3400 and Celeron M 370 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3400 and Celeron M 370. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon HD 6410D | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.69 | 0.15 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 21 Watt |
A4-3400 has a 360% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 181.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 370, on the other hand, has 209.5% lower power consumption.
The A4-3400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 370 in performance tests.
Note that A4-3400 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 370 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3400 and Celeron M 370, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
