Celeron E3400 vs Apple M3 Max 16-Core
Aggregate performance score
M3 Max 16-Core outperforms Celeron E3400 by a whopping 4480% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 274 | 3131 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.72 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Apple M3 | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.84 |
| Designer | Apple | Intel |
| Manufacturer | no data | Intel |
| Architecture codename | no data | Wolfdale (2008−2010) |
| Release date | 30 October 2023 (2 years ago) | 17 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $76 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron E3400 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.748 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.06 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 82 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 92000 Million | 228 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron E3400 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron E3400. 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 | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron E3400 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 M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron E3400 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron E3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M3 Max 40-Core GPU | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron E3400.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.36 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 30 October 2023 | 17 January 2010 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 45 nm |
Apple M3 Max 16-Core has a 4480.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.
The Apple M3 Max 16-Core is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron E3400 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M3 Max 16-Core is a notebook processor while Celeron E3400 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
