A4-3400 vs Celeron 1037U
Aggregate performance score
A4-3400 outperforms Celeron 1037U by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 1037U and A4-3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2760 | 2710 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.49 | 1.00 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) | 7 September 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 1037U and A4-3400 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 | 1.8 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 1037U and A4-3400 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 | FCBGA1023 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1037U and A4-3400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| My WiFi | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron 1037U and A4-3400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1037U and A4-3400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1037U and A4-3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors | Radeon HD 6410D |
| Graphics max frequency | 1 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1037U and A4-3400 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1037U and A4-3400.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.65 | 0.71 |
| Recency | 20 January 2013 | 7 September 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron 1037U has an age advantage of 1 year, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 282.4% lower power consumption.
A4-3400, on the other hand, has a 9.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron 1037U and A4-3400.
Be aware that Celeron 1037U is a notebook processor while A4-3400 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1037U and A4-3400, 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.
