Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron M U3400

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M U3400
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.29
+45%
Athlon II Neo K125
2010
1 core / 1 thread, 12 Watt
0.20

Celeron M U3400 outperforms Athlon II Neo K125 by a considerable 45% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31213235
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MAMD Athlon II Neo
Power efficiency1.521.58
Architecture codenameArrandale (2010−2011)Geneva (2010)
Release date24 May 2010 (14 years ago)12 May 2010 (14 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 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
Boost clock speed1.06 GHz1.7 GHz
Bus rate2500 MHz2000 MHz
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache512 KB1 MB
L3 cache2 MBno data
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size81+114 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors382+177 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 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.

SocketBGA1288S1
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt12 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, 3dDNow!, SSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3

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 M U3400 0.29
+45%
Athlon II Neo K125 0.20

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 M U3400 1205
Athlon II Neo K125 1491
+23.7%

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 M U3400 988
+34.4%
Athlon II Neo K125 735

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron M U3400 62.2
+45.8%
Athlon II Neo K125 90.7

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.29 0.20
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 12 Watt

Celeron M U3400 has a 45% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon II Neo K125, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.

The Celeron M U3400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II Neo K125 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125, 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 M U3400
Celeron M U3400
AMD Athlon II Neo K125
Athlon II Neo K125

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.


2.8 4 votes

Rate Celeron M U3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 21 vote

Rate Athlon II Neo K125 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M U3400 or Athlon II Neo K125, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.