C-60 vs Celeron M U3400

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M U3400
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.29
+45%

Celeron M U3400 outperforms C-60 by a considerable 45% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M U3400 and C-60 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31223234
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MAMD C-Series
Power efficiency1.522.10
Architecture codenameArrandale (2010−2011)Ontario (2011−2012)
Release date24 May 2010 (14 years ago)22 August 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron M U3400 and C-60 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 speedno data1 GHz
Boost clock speed1.06 GHz1.33 GHz
Bus rate2500 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB512K (per core)
L3 cache2 MB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm40 nm
Die size81+114 mm275 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors382+177 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M U3400 and C-60 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 configurationno data1
SocketBGA1288FT1 BGA 413-Ball
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt9 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M U3400 and C-60. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V, Radeon HD 6290 (276-400 MHz)
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron M U3400 and C-60 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M U3400 and C-60 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M U3400 and C-60. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3 Single-channel

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6290

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 M U3400 0.29
+45%
C-60 0.20

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.

Celeron M U3400 1205
+57%
C-60 768

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.

Celeron M U3400 2317
+56.2%
C-60 1483

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Celeron M U3400 988
+31.2%
C-60 753

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.

Celeron M U3400 62.2
+38.5%
C-60 86.15

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.29 0.20
Recency 24 May 2010 22 August 2011
Chip lithography 32 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 9 Watt

Celeron M U3400 has a 45% higher aggregate performance score, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.

C-60, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Celeron M U3400 is our recommended choice as it beats the C-60 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M U3400 and C-60, 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 M U3400
Celeron M U3400
AMD C-60
C-60

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.


2.8 4 votes

Rate Celeron M U3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 244 votes

Rate C-60 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M U3400 or C-60, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.