A6-3400M vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core T3100
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.74
A6-3400M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.75
+1.4%

A6-3400M outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3100 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-3400M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26812667
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreAMD A-Series
Power efficiency2.002.03
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date1 September 2009 (15 years ago)14 June 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-3400M 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speedno data1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed1.9 GHz2.3 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cache128 KB128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size107 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 Million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-3400M 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
SocketBGA479, PGA478FS1
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-3400M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-3400M are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-3400M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6520G (400 MHz)

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 Dual-Core T3100 0.74
A6-3400M 0.75
+1.4%

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 Dual-Core T3100 1174
A6-3400M 1193
+1.6%

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 Dual-Core T3100 1900
+25.7%
A6-3400M 1512

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 Dual-Core T3100 3740
A6-3400M 4922
+31.6%

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 Dual-Core T3100 1687
A6-3400M 2135
+26.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.74 0.75
Recency 1 September 2009 14 June 2011
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm

A6-3400M has a 1.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-3400M.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-3400M, 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 Dual-Core T3100
Celeron Dual-Core T3100
AMD A6-3400M
A6-3400M

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.


3.5 35 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 174 votes

Rate A6-3400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron Dual-Core T3100 or A6-3400M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.