Athlon X2 450 vs Celeron E3400

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron E3400
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.55
Athlon X2 450
2014
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.82
+49.1%

Athlon X2 450 outperforms Celeron E3400 by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E3400 and Athlon X2 450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28302585
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.72no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency0.801.19
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)Kaveri (2014−2015)
Release date17 January 2010 (14 years ago)31 July 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$76no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron E3400 and Athlon X2 450 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.6 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz3.9 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128K
L2 cache1 MB (shared)1 MB (shared)
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography45 nm28 nm
Die size82 mm2245 mm2
Maximum core temperature74 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors228 million2,411 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E3400 and Athlon X2 450 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
SocketLGA775FM2+
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Athlon X2 450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Celeron E3400 and Athlon X2 450 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 Celeron E3400 and Athlon X2 450 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Athlon X2 450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3-1866

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Athlon X2 450.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

Celeron E3400 0.55
Athlon X2 450 0.82
+49.1%

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.

Celeron E3400 869
Athlon X2 450 1295
+49%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 0.82
Recency 17 January 2010 31 July 2014
Chip lithography 45 nm 28 nm

Athlon X2 450 has a 49.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Athlon X2 450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3400 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 and Athlon X2 450, 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.


Intel Celeron E3400
Celeron E3400
AMD Athlon X2 450
Athlon X2 450

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.


3.2 268 votes

Rate Celeron E3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 5 votes

Rate Athlon X2 450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron E3400 or Athlon X2 450, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.