Athlon XP 3200+ vs Core Solo T1400

Athlon XP 3200+ vs Core Solo T1400 Performance Spectrum

Athlon XP 3200+

1 / 1

445

+4.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core Solo T1400

1 / 1

428

0.0%

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 XP 3200+ 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 XP 3200+ 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 XP 3200+

2001

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.0 vs 2.1 PassMark/$ ($464 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
❌3750% higher power demand at 77W vs 2W.

Core Solo T1400

2006

Why buy it

✅Costs $264 less on MSRP ($200 MSRP vs $464 MSRP).
✅Delivers 123.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 2.1 vs 1.0 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $464 MSRP).
✅Draws 2W instead of 77W, a 75W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (428 vs 445).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon XP 3200+ better than Core Solo T1400?

Yes. Athlon XP 3200+ 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 4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon XP 3200+ 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, Athlon XP 3200+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon XP 3200+ is still the much better call for a fresh build. Athlon XP 3200+ comes in 132.0% more expensive on MSRP at $464 MSRP versus $200 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core Solo T1400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2006 platform. Even with 123.1% better value on paper (2.1 vs 1.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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 2001). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon XP 3200+ vs Core Solo T1400 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon XP 3200+

The Athlon XP 3200+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Barton (2001−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: A. Thermal design power (TDP): 77 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 445 points. Launch price was $149.

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 XP 3200+ and Core Solo T1400 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Athlon XP 3200+ versus 1.83 GHz on the Core Solo T1400 — a 18.4% clock advantage for the Athlon XP 3200+. The Athlon XP 3200+ uses the Barton (2001−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Core Solo T1400 uses Yonah (2005−2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon XP 3200+ scores 445 against the Core Solo T1400's 428 — a 3.9% lead for the Athlon XP 3200+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon XP 3200+	Core Solo T1400
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+20%	1.83 GHz
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	Barton (2001−2004)	Yonah (2005−2006)
PassMark	445+4%	428

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon XP 3200+ uses the A socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core Solo T1400 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon XP 3200+	Core Solo T1400
Socket	A	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon XP 3200+ was priced at $464, while the Core Solo T1400 came in at $200. On launch pricing ($464 vs $200), Core Solo T1400 was $264 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon XP 3200+ delivers 1.0 pts/$ vs 2.1 pts/$ for the Core Solo T1400 — making the Core Solo T1400 the 76.2% better value option.

Feature	Athlon XP 3200+	Core Solo T1400
MSRP	$464	$200-57%
Performance per Dollar	1.0	2.1+110%
Release Date	2001	2006

Search Athlon XP 3200+ 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.