Celeron 2957U vs A6-3400M

VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-3400M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.78
+39.3%

A6-3400M outperforms Celeron 2957U by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26472835
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency2.033.40
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Haswell (2013−2015)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)1 January 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.4 GHz1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz1.4 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cache128 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)512 KB
L3 cache0 KB2 MB
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size228 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U 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 configuration11
SocketFS1FCBGA1168
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480GIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data+
FDIno data-
AMTno data9.5
Matrix Storageno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data+

Security technologies

A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6520GIntel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data10
PCI supportno data-
USB revisionno data3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Integrated IDEno data-
Number of USB portsno data4
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno data+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A6-3400M 0.78
+39.3%
Celeron 2957U 0.56

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

A6-3400M 1191
+39.3%
Celeron 2957U 855

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

A6-3400M 1512
Celeron 2957U 2077
+37.4%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

A6-3400M 4922
+21.7%
Celeron 2957U 4043

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

A6-3400M 26
+106%
Celeron 2957U 53.5

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

A6-3400M 2
+48.3%
Celeron 2957U 1

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.78 0.56
Recency 14 June 2011 1 January 2014
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

A6-3400M has a 39.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron 2957U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The A6-3400M is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2957U in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-3400M and Celeron 2957U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A6-3400M
A6-3400M
Intel Celeron 2957U
Celeron 2957U

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 170 votes

Rate A6-3400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 70 votes

Rate Celeron 2957U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-3400M or Celeron 2957U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.