C-60 vs Core Duo T2400

C-60

2 Cores2 Thrd9 WWMax: 1.33 GHz2011

Core Duo T2400

2 Cores2 Thrd2 WWMax: 1.83 GHz2006

Performance Spectrum - CPU

C-60

2 / 2

1,483

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core Duo T2400

2 / 2

1,488

+0.3%

Celeron J1800

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The C-60 is positioned at rank 704 and the Core Duo T2400 is on rank 1205, so the C-60 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar C-60

#692

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

989%

#693

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

975%

#694

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

895%

#695

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

891%

#696

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

883%

#698

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

852%

#699

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

817%

#700

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

816%

#701

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

794%

#704

C-60

MSRP: $50|Avg: $20

100%

#712

Core i7-10850H

MSRP: $395|Avg: N/A

99%

#718

Core i3-1315UE

MSRP: $312|Avg: $250

97%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Core Duo T2400

#1193

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

5798%

#1194

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

5713%

#1195

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

5245%

#1196

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

5221%

#1197

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

5174%

#1199

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

4996%

#1200

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

4791%

#1201

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

4783%

#1202

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

4654%

#1205

Core Duo T2400

MSRP: $294|Avg: N/A

100%

#1206

Core 2 Duo U7600

MSRP: $250|Avg: $5

100%

#1207

Pentium M 735

MSRP: $294|Avg: N/A

98%

#1208

Core i7-620LM

MSRP: $300|Avg: N/A

96%

#1209

Core i7-740QM

MSRP: $378|Avg: N/A

96%

#1211

Core 2 Solo SU3300

MSRP: $262|Avg: $50

94%

#1212

Celeron 540

MSRP: $86|Avg: $5

94%

#1213

Celeron U3600

MSRP: $134|Avg: $134

92%

#1216

Core 2 Quad Q9000

MSRP: $348|Avg: $15

91%

#1217

Core i5-2537M

MSRP: $250|Avg: N/A

91%

#1218

Core i7-720QM

MSRP: $364|Avg: N/A

90%

#1219

Pentium U5400

MSRP: $289|Avg: $214

88%

#1220

Pentium T2330

MSRP: $150|Avg: $7

88%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Core Duo T2400 delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the C-60 in both compute-intensive tasks (0.3% faster) and gaming workloads.

Insight	C-60	Core Duo T2400
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	✅ More affordable ($20)	⚠️ Higher cost ($294)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Ontario (2011−2012) / 40 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Yonah (2005−2006) / 65 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Value Proposition: While both processors are considered legacy components by modern standards, the C-60 holds the technical lead in efficiency. Priced at $20 (vs $294), it costs 93% less. While offering basic entry-level performance, it results in a 1365% higher cost efficiency score compared to the Core Duo T2400.

Insight	C-60	Core Duo T2400
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+1365%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($20)	⚠️ Higher cost ($294)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

C-60 Benchmark Check

Core Duo T2400 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of C-60 and Core Duo T2400

C-60

The C-60 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 August 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Ontario (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.33 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 9 Watt. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 1,483 points. Launch price was $69.

Core Duo T2400

The Core Duo T2400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Janeiro 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 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): 31 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,488 points. Launch price was $16.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the C-60 and Core Duo T2400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.33 GHz on the C-60 versus 1.83 GHz on the Core Duo T2400 — a 31.6% clock advantage for the Core Duo T2400 (base: 1 GHz vs 1.83 GHz). The C-60 uses the Ontario (2011−2012) architecture (40 nm), while the Core Duo T2400 uses Yonah (2005−2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the C-60 scores 1,483 against the Core Duo T2400's 1,488 — a 0.3% lead for the Core Duo T2400. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	C-60	Core Duo T2400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.33 GHz	1.83 GHz+38%
Base Clock	1 GHz	1.83 GHz+83%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	2 MB+300%
Process	40 nm-38%	65 nm
Architecture	Ontario (2011−2012)	Yonah (2005−2006)
PassMark	1,483	1,488

🧠

Memory & Platform

The C-60 uses the FT1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core Duo T2400 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the C-60 versus DDR2-667 on the Core Duo T2400 — the C-60 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (C-60) vs 2 (Core Duo T2400). PCIe lanes: 4 (C-60) vs 16 (Core Duo T2400) — the Core Duo T2400 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD BGA413 (C-60) and 945GM,945PM (Core Duo T2400).

Feature	C-60	Core Duo T2400
Socket	FT1	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066+50%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (C-60) / VT-x (Core Duo T2400). The C-60 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6290), while the Core Duo T2400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Duo T2400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Core Duo T2400 rivals Pentium T2310.