Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron U3400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Athlon II Neo
Architecture codenameWestmere (2010−2011)Geneva (2010)
Release date24 May 2010 (14 years ago)12 May 2010 (14 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speed1.06 GHzno data
Boost clock speed0.07 GHz1.7 GHz
Bus typeDMI 1.0no data
Bus rate1 × 2.5 GT/s2000 MHz
Multiplier8no data
L1 cache128 KB128 KB
L2 cache512 KB1 MB
L3 cache2 MBno data
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size81 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors382 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketBGA1288S1
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt12 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, 3dDNow!, SSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization
FMA+-
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data

Security technologies

Celeron U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 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 U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 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 U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-800DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth12.799 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® Processorsno data
Clear Video+no data
Graphics max frequency500 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


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 U3400 516
+63.8%
Athlon II Neo K125 315

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron U3400 176
Athlon II Neo K125 184
+4.5%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron U3400 313
+70.1%
Athlon II Neo K125 184

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 12 Watt

Celeron U3400 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon II Neo K125, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125, 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 U3400
Celeron U3400
AMD Athlon II Neo K125
Athlon II Neo K125

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.


2.4 30 votes

Rate Celeron U3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 20 votes

Rate Athlon II Neo K125 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron U3400 or Athlon II Neo K125, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.