Celeron 2.40 vs Core Solo T1200

Celeron 2.40

1 Cores1 Thrd73 WWMax: 2.4 GHz2003

Core Solo T1200

1 Cores1 Thrd2 WWMax: 1.5 GHz2006

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Celeron 2.40

1 / 1

345

0.0%

355

+2.9%

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.

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 Celeron 2.40 is positioned at rank 1072 and the Core Solo T1200 is on rank 1241, so the Celeron 2.40 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 Celeron 2.40

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

62343%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

58908%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

42772%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

12885%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

10207%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

8929%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

5114%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

5047%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

4596%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

4595%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

4544%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

4421%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

4359%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

4342%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

4302%

#1072

Celeron 2.40

MSRP: $69|Avg: $13

100%

#1073

Sempron 2800+

MSRP: $65|Avg: $29

98%

#1074

Athlon 64 3100+

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

95%

#1075

Sempron 3600+

MSRP: $105|Avg: $20

92%

#1076

Celeron 2.80

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

86%

#1077

Athlon 64 X2 6000+

MSRP: $450|Avg: $20

81%

#1078

Athlon 64 3600+

MSRP: $149|Avg: $15

80%

#1079

Core 2 Quad Q6700

MSRP: $530|Avg: $50

79%

#1080

Athlon 64 2600+

MSRP: $100|Avg: $5

78%

#1081

Celeron 2.20

MSRP: $79|Avg: $15

77%

#1082

Athlon 64 X2 5200+

MSRP: $420|Avg: $15

72%

#1083

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

MSRP: $328|Avg: $10

72%

#1084

Core i7-975

MSRP: $999|Avg: $50

71%

#1085

Athlon XP 2600+

MSRP: $98|Avg: $10

69%

#1086

Core i7-965

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $40

68%

#1087

Athlon 64 FX-74

MSRP: $499|Avg: $50

66%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Core Solo T1200

#1229

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

17259%

#1230

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

17006%

#1231

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

15612%

#1232

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

15541%

#1233

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

15399%

#1235

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

14871%

#1236

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

14259%

#1237

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

14235%

#1238

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

13853%

#1241

Core Solo T1200

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

100%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The Celeron 2.40 leads in gaming performance. However, the Core Solo T1200 is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 2.9% greater multi-core processing power.

Insight	Celeron 2.40	Core Solo T1200
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	⚠️ Higher cost ($13)	✅ More affordable ($10)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (NetBurst (2000−2006) / 130 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Yonah (2005−2006) / 65 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Core Solo T1200 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 23% cheaper ($10 vs $13) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Celeron 2.40	Core Solo T1200
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+34%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️ Higher cost ($13)	✅ More affordable ($10)

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.

Celeron 2.40 Benchmark Check

Core Solo T1200 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 2.40 and Core Solo T1200

Celeron 2.40

The Celeron 2.40 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 345 points. Launch price was $69.

Core Solo T1200

The Core Solo T1200 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. Max frequency: 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: BGA479. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 355 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.40 and Core Solo T1200 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 versus 1.5 GHz on the Core Solo T1200 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Celeron 2.40 uses the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture (130 nm), while the Core Solo T1200 uses Yonah (2005−2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.40 scores 345 against the Core Solo T1200's 355 — a 2.9% lead for the Core Solo T1200. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.40	Core Solo T1200
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+60%	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	128 kB	2 MB+1500%
Process	130 nm	65 nm-50%
Architecture	NetBurst (2000−2006)	Yonah (2005−2006)
PassMark	345	355+3%
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	150	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2.40 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core Solo T1200 uses BGA479 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 2.40	Core Solo T1200
Socket	PGA478	BGA479
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-333	—
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	❌	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: None (Celeron 2.40) / not specified (Core Solo T1200). Primary use case: Celeron 2.40 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.40 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.

Feature	Celeron 2.40	Core Solo T1200
Integrated GPU	No	—
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	None	—
Target Use	Legacy Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Celeron 2.40 launched at $69 MSRP, while the Core Solo T1200 debuted at $209. At current prices ($13 vs $10), the Core Solo T1200 is $3 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2.40 delivers 26.5 pts/$ vs 35.5 pts/$ for the Core Solo T1200 — making the Core Solo T1200 the 28.9% better value option.