Celeron E3400 vs Athlon 64 FX-62
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 FX-62 outperforms Celeron E3400 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron E3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2787 | 2852 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.72 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Athlon 64 (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.48 | 0.79 |
| Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2007) | Wolfdale (2008−2010) |
| Release date | no data | 17 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $76 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron E3400 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1000 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 220 mm2 | 82 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 243 million | 228 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron E3400 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 | AM2 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron E3400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron E3400 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 Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron E3400 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron E3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron E3400.
| PCIe version | no data | 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 | 0.63 | 0.54 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 65 Watt |
Athlon 64 FX-62 has a 16.7% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron E3400, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.
The Athlon 64 FX-62 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3400 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 FX-62 and Celeron E3400, 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.
