Celeron Dual-Core T1700 vs A6-4400M

Aggregate performance score

A6-4400M
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.64
Celeron Dual-Core T1700
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.67
+4.7%

Celeron Dual-Core T1700 outperforms A6-4400M by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-4400M and Celeron Dual-Core T1700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27602732
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-Core
Power efficiency1.721.80
Architecture codenameTrinity (2012−2013)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date15 May 2012 (12 years ago)7 December 2008 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A6-4400M and Celeron Dual-Core T1700 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 speed2.7 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz1.83 GHz
Bus rateno data667 MHz
L1 cache96 KBno data
L2 cache1 MB (shared)1 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size246 mm2143 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million291 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A6-4400M and Celeron Dual-Core T1700 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 configuration1no data
SocketFS1r2PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-4400M and Celeron Dual-Core T1700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMAno data
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-4400M and Celeron Dual-Core T1700 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-4400M and Celeron Dual-Core T1700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesunknownno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 7520Gno 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.


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.

A6-4400M 0.64
Celeron Dual-Core T1700 0.67
+4.7%

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.

A6-4400M 1010
Celeron Dual-Core T1700 1058
+4.8%

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.

A6-4400M 2292
+31%
Celeron Dual-Core T1700 1750

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.

A6-4400M 3407
+4.2%
Celeron Dual-Core T1700 3270

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.

A6-4400M 1804
+23.9%
Celeron Dual-Core T1700 1456

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.64 0.67
Recency 15 May 2012 7 December 2008
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm

A6-4400M has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron Dual-Core T1700, on the other hand, has a 4.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A6-4400M and Celeron Dual-Core T1700.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-4400M and Celeron Dual-Core T1700, 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.


AMD A6-4400M
A6-4400M
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700
Celeron Dual-Core T1700

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.


3.3 186 votes

Rate A6-4400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 4 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T1700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-4400M or Celeron Dual-Core T1700, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.