Celeron E3400 vs Athlon 64 2650e
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 2650e and Celeron E3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2832 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.72 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.80 |
| Architecture codename | Lima (2008−2009) | Wolfdale (2008−2010) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) | 17 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $76 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 2650e 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 77 mm2 | 82 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 122 million | 228 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 2650e 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM2 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 2650e 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
Athlon 64 2650e 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 Athlon 64 2650e 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 Athlon 64 2650e and Celeron E3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 2650e and Celeron E3400.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2009 | 17 January 2010 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Athlon 64 2650e has 333.3% lower power consumption.
Celeron E3400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 2650e and Celeron E3400. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 2650e and Celeron E3400, 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.
