Athlon 64 2600+ vs Core Solo T1350

Athlon 64 2600+ vs Core Solo T1350 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 2600+

1 / 1

392

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core Solo T1350

1 / 1

405

+3.3%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Athlon 64 2600+ vs Core Solo T1350 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 64 2600+ vs Core Solo T1350: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 64 2600+

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $100 less on MSRP ($100 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Delivers 93.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 3.9 vs 2.0 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (392 vs 405).
❌650% higher power demand at 15W vs 2W.

Core Solo T1350

2006

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 15W, a 13W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.0 vs 3.9 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core Solo T1350 better than Athlon 64 2600+?

Yes. Core Solo T1350 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Solo T1350 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Solo T1350 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.3% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core Solo T1350 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core Solo T1350 comes in 100.0% more expensive on MSRP at $200 MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 2600+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 93.6% better value on paper (3.9 vs 2.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM2.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Athlon 64 2600+ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 2600+ vs Core Solo T1350 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 64 2600+

The Athlon 64 2600+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lima (2008−2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 392 points. Launch price was $149.

Core Solo T1350

The Core Solo T1350 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.86 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 31 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 405 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 2600+ and Core Solo T1350 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 2600+ versus 1.86 GHz on the Core Solo T1350 — a 15% clock advantage for the Core Solo T1350. The Athlon 64 2600+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Core Solo T1350 uses Yonah (2005−2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 2600+ scores 392 against the Core Solo T1350's 405 — a 3.3% lead for the Core Solo T1350. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 2600+	Core Solo T1350
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	1.86 GHz+16%
Base Clock	—	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	2 MB+300%
Process	65 nm	65 nm
Architecture	Lima (2008−2009)	Yonah (2005−2006)
PassMark	392	405+3%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 2600+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core Solo T1350 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon 64 2600+	Core Solo T1350
Socket	AM2	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 2600+ was priced at $100, while the Core Solo T1350 came in at $200. On launch pricing ($100 vs $200), Athlon 64 2600+ was $100 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 2600+ delivers 3.9 pts/$ vs 2.0 pts/$ for the Core Solo T1350 — making the Athlon 64 2600+ the 63.8% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 2600+	Core Solo T1350
MSRP	$100-50%	$200
Performance per Dollar	3.9+95%	2.0
Release Date	2008	2006

Search Athlon 64 2600+ on Amazon

Search Core Solo T1350 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.