Celeron G470 vs E3400
Aggregate performance score
Celeron E3400 outperforms Celeron G470 by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2851 | 3052 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.72 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 0.78 | 0.97 |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | no data |
| Release date | 17 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 April 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $76 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470 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 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (shared) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1.5 MB Intel® Smart Cache |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 82 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | 66 °C |
| Number of transistors | 228 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470 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 | LGA775 | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 17 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.54 | 0.36 |
| Recency | 17 January 2010 | 1 April 2013 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron E3400 has a 50% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores.
Celeron G470, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.
The Celeron E3400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G470 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 and Celeron G470, 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.
