Athlon 64 2800+ vs Core Solo T1400

Athlon 64 2800+ vs Core Solo T1400 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 2800+

1 / 1

420

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core Solo T1400

1 / 1

428

+1.9%

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 2800+ vs Core Solo T1400 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 2800+ vs Core Solo T1400: 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 2800+

2004

Why buy it

✅Costs $22 less on MSRP ($178 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Delivers 10.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 2.4 vs 2.1 PassMark/$ ($178 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Solo T1400 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (420 vs 428).
❌4350% higher power demand at 89W vs 2W.

Core Solo T1400

2006

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 2W instead of 89W, a 87W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.1 vs 2.4 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $178 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core Solo T1400 better than Athlon 64 2800+?

Yes. Core Solo T1400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 9.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.9% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Solo T1400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 9.4% 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 T1400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core Solo T1400 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core Solo T1400 comes in 12.4% more expensive on MSRP at $200 MSRP versus $178 MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 2800+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2004 platform. Even with 10.3% better value on paper (2.4 vs 2.1 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on 754.

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

Core Solo T1400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2006 vs 2004) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 2800+ vs Core Solo T1400 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 2800+

The Athlon 64 2800+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Abril 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the NewCastle (2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 420 points. Launch price was $100.

Core Solo T1400

The Core Solo T1400 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 1.83 GHz, with boost up to 1.83 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 27 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 428 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 2800+ and Core Solo T1400 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 2800+ versus 1.83 GHz on the Core Solo T1400 — a 1.7% clock advantage for the Core Solo T1400. The Athlon 64 2800+ uses the NewCastle (2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Core Solo T1400 uses Yonah (2005−2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 2800+ scores 420 against the Core Solo T1400's 428 — a 1.9% lead for the Core Solo T1400. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 2800+	Core Solo T1400
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	1.83 GHz+2%
Base Clock	—	1.83 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	2 MB+300%
Process	130 nm	65 nm-50%
Architecture	NewCastle (2004)	Yonah (2005−2006)
PassMark	420	428+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 2800+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core Solo T1400 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon 64 2800+	Core Solo T1400
Socket	754	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 2800+ was priced at $178, while the Core Solo T1400 came in at $200. On launch pricing ($178 vs $200), Athlon 64 2800+ was $22 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 2800+ delivers 2.4 pts/$ vs 2.1 pts/$ for the Core Solo T1400 — making the Athlon 64 2800+ the 9.8% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 2800+	Core Solo T1400
MSRP	$178-11%	$200
Performance per Dollar	2.4+14%	2.1
Release Date	2004	2006

Search Athlon 64 2800+ on Amazon

Search Core Solo T1400 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.