Intel Celeron E3400

The Intel Celeron E3400 is an end-of-life desktop processor that sits at the 50th percentile of all CPUs in the benchmark database, a position that indicates it is neither a standout performer nor a laggard, but rather a strictly average part for its era. With a dual-core, dual-thread configuration running at a base clock of 2.60 GHz, this Wolfdale-based chip (45 nm process, 228 million transistors, 82 mm² die) offers a predictable level of compute capability that is best understood through its architectural constraints rather than raw competitive firepower. The data shows a processor designed for basic tasks, and the absence of any nearestRivals in the FACT PACK means the analysis below relies entirely on the chip’s own specifications and percentile ranking.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark results for the Intel Celeron E3400 are notable for what they do not contain: the FACT PACK lists an average benchmark score of 0 and zero individual benchmark entries, which means there is no numeric score to compare against any competitor directly. However, the percentileVsAllCpus field provides a crucial interpretive anchor: at the 50th percentile, this processor sits exactly at the median of all CPUs tracked in the database. This placement indicates that, in a purely statistical sense, half of all processors perform better and half perform worse, making the E3400 a quintessential mid-pack part.

Without nearestRivals data, no exact percentage deltas can be cited against specific competitors. The benchmark database shows no rival scores, no deltaPct values, and no relative performance figures to analyze. What the data does reveal is the structural basis for that median position: two cores and two threads at 2.60 GHz, with a shared 1 MB L2 cache. In a modern context, this configuration would struggle, but the 45 nm process and Core 2 architecture were competitive in their time. The 50th percentile ranking suggests that, among all CPUs ever benchmarked, the E3400 holds a central position—a reflection of its modest specifications rather than any exceptional efficiency or clock speed advantage. The absence of a boost clock further cements its role as a fixed-frequency part, with no dynamic headroom for burst workloads.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The E3400’s dual-core, dual-thread design means there is no hyper-threading to create additional logical processors; each core handles exactly one thread. This creates a clear behavioral split: single-threaded performance is driven entirely by the 2.60 GHz clock speed, while multi-threaded performance scales only across two physical cores. The shared 1 MB L2 cache (with 64 KB L1 per core) is the only cache level beyond the per-core L1, and this small shared pool can become a bottleneck in multi-threaded workloads where both cores compete for the same data.

For real-world applications, the data implies that single-threaded tasks—such as legacy office software, basic web browsing, or light spreadsheet work—will run at a pace dictated by the 2.60 GHz clock, which is modest by modern standards but acceptable for simple operations. Multi-threaded tasks, such as video encoding or compiling, will see a theoretical 2x scaling at best, but the lack of additional threads and the small cache mean actual scaling will be lower. The 50th percentile ranking suggests that, on average, this chip handles mixed workloads adequately, but it will not excel in any parallel-heavy scenario. The absence of a boost clock means there is no single-thread turbo mode, so the 2.60 GHz figure is the absolute ceiling for any single-core task.

Power and Thermals

The Intel Celeron E3400 carries a TDP of 65 watts, which places it in a mid-range power class for desktop processors of its generation. This TDP figure, combined with the 45 nm process node, implies that a capable air cooler—such as a stock Intel cooler or a basic aftermarket tower—would be more than sufficient to manage thermals under sustained load. The 65-watt envelope is not extreme, so thermal throttling is unlikely in typical desktop chassis with adequate airflow.

The architecture’s modest transistor count (228 million) and die size (82 mm²) suggest that heat density is low, further easing cooling requirements. For a system builder, the 65-watt TDP means that power supply and cooling considerations are minimal; a standard ATX power supply and a basic CPU cooler will handle this part without issue. The data does not include any thermal measurements or cooling benchmarks, so no specific temperature figures can be cited, but the TDP class alone indicates a low-maintenance cooling tier. This is not a chip that demands liquid cooling or high-end air towers; it is a straightforward, low-heat part for basic desktop builds.

FAQ

Q: What is the base clock speed of the Intel Celeron E3400?

A: The base clock speed is 2.60 GHz, with no boost clock available.

Q: How many cores and threads does this processor have?

A: It has 2 cores and 2 threads, meaning each core handles exactly one thread with no hyper-threading.

Q: What socket does the E3400 use?

A: It uses the Intel Socket 775, which is an older desktop socket.

Q: What memory types are supported?

A: The processor supports DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3 memory, all in dual-channel configuration.

Q: Does the E3400 have integrated graphics?

A: Integrated graphics are available only as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, not on the CPU itself.

Q: What is the production status of this chip?

A: It is end-of-life, meaning it is no longer in active production.

Q: What is the process node and transistor count?

A: The process node is 45 nm, and the chip contains 228 million transistors on an 82 mm² die.

How It Compares

The FACT PACK lists no nearest rivals for the Intel Celeron E3400, which means there are no direct competitor names, scores, or percentage deltas to analyze. The only comparative data point is the 50th percentile ranking, which positions this chip as exactly average among all CPUs in the database. Without rival specifications or performance figures, the comparison must be framed in absolute terms: this processor’s dual-core, dual-thread layout at 2.60 GHz with 1 MB L2 cache defines its capability envelope.

In the absence of named rivals, the 50th percentile is the sole benchmark anchor. This suggests that, historically, the E3400 sat in the middle of the performance distribution—neither a budget outlier nor a performance leader. Its 65-watt TDP and Socket 775 compatibility tie it to an older platform, and its end-of-life status means it is now obsolete by modern standards. The data shows no competitive pressure from newer parts in the FACT PACK, so the comparison is purely positional: median performance, mid-range power draw, and legacy platform support.

Platform and Compatibility

The Intel Celeron E3400 is built for the Intel Socket 775 platform, a socket that has long been superseded. It supports dual-channel memory across three generations—DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3—which is an unusually broad range, though practical use would likely be limited to DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard. The memory bus is dual-channel, but no memory bandwidth figure is provided, so exact throughput cannot be cited. ECC memory is not supported, which rules out server or workstation use.

The processor uses PCIe Gen 2, which provides adequate bandwidth for older discrete graphics cards and expansion cards, but it is two generations behind current standards. Integrated graphics are not on the CPU die; instead, they are a chipset feature on certain motherboards, meaning the CPU itself requires a separate graphics card or a motherboard with integrated graphics support. The upgrade path from this Socket 775 part is limited to other processors on that socket, which are all end-of-life. The part number is SLGTZ, and the multiplier is locked, so overclocking is not an option. The memory support for DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3 is a unique flexibility, but the lack of ECC and the old socket make this a platform for legacy builds only.

Who Should Consider It

The benchmark data—specifically the 50th percentile ranking and the dual-core, dual-thread configuration—suggests that the Intel Celeron E3400 is suited only for the most basic of computing tasks. For gaming, the absence of a boost clock, the low 2.60 GHz base clock, and the lack of integrated graphics on the CPU mean that any playable experience would require a separate graphics card and would be limited to older, less demanding titles; the 50th percentile ranking indicates that it would perform at the median level of all CPUs, which is inadequate for modern AAA games.

For content creation, the two threads and 1 MB shared L2 cache are severe limitations; video editing, 3D rendering, or large batch photo processing would be painfully slow, and the data shows no multi-thread advantage beyond two physical cores. Office work is the most plausible use case: spreadsheets, word processing, and email applications are single-threaded and light, and the 2.60 GHz clock can handle these without issue. The 65-watt TDP makes it a low-heat option for a basic office PC, and the DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 memory support allows reuse of older RAM modules. However, the end-of-life status and Socket 775 platform mean that any new build using this chip would be assembling legacy parts with no forward upgrade path. In summary, the E3400 is a viable choice only for those with a specific need for a low-power, legacy dual-core system for simple office tasks, and even then, the 50th percentile ranking indicates that many other CPUs—even older ones—would offer similar or better performance.