Athlon XP 1700+ vs Celeron E3400

Aggregate performance score

Celeron E3400
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.55
+400%
Athlon XP 1700+
2001
1 core / 1 thread, 64 Watt
0.11

Celeron E3400 outperforms Athlon XP 1700+ by a whopping 400% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E3400 and Athlon XP 1700+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28323358
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.72no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency0.800.16
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)Thoroughbred (2001−2002)
Release date17 January 2010 (14 years ago)October 2001 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$76no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron E3400 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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 speed2.6 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz1.47 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache1 MB (shared)256 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm180 nm
Die size82 mm2150 mm2
Maximum core temperature74 °Cno data
Number of transistors228 million37 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E3400 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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 configuration11
SocketLGA775A
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt64 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Athlon XP 1700+. 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

Celeron E3400 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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 E3400 and Athlon XP 1700+ are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Athlon XP 1700+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Athlon XP 1700+.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

Celeron E3400 0.55
+400%
Athlon XP 1700+ 0.11

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 E3400 869
+394%
Athlon XP 1700+ 176

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 0.11
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 45 nm 180 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 64 Watt

Celeron E3400 has a 400% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon XP 1700+, on the other hand, has 1.6% lower power consumption.

The Celeron E3400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon XP 1700+ in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 and Athlon XP 1700+, 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 E3400
Celeron E3400
AMD Athlon XP 1700+
Athlon XP 1700+

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.


3.2 268 votes

Rate Celeron E3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 23 votes

Rate Athlon XP 1700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron E3400 or Athlon XP 1700+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.