Celeron 2.40 vs Core Solo T1200

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.

Celeron 2.40 vs Core Solo T1200 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.

Celeron 2.40 vs Core Solo T1200: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.40

2003

Why buy it

✅Costs $140 less on MSRP ($69 MSRP vs $209 MSRP).
✅Delivers 194.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.0 vs 1.7 PassMark/$ ($69 MSRP vs $209 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Core Solo T1200.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (345 vs 355).
❌3550% higher power demand at 73W vs 2W.

Core Solo T1200

2006

Why buy it

✅+2.9% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 2W instead of 73W, a 71W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.7 vs 5.0 PassMark/$ ($209 MSRP vs $69 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron 2.40.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Solo T1200 better than Celeron 2.40?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.40 is ahead with 60% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core Solo T1200 pulls ahead with 2.9% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Solo T1200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core Solo T1200 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core Solo T1200 comes in 202.9% more expensive on MSRP at $209 MSRP versus $69 MSRP, and it still gives you 2.9% better PassMark. Celeron 2.40 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2003 platform. Even with 194.4% better value on paper (5.0 vs 1.7 PassMark/$), 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 T1200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2006 vs 2003) 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.

Celeron 2.40 vs Core Solo T1200 Technical Specifications

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

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	No	—
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

At launch, the Celeron 2.40 was priced at $69, while the Core Solo T1200 came in at $209. On launch pricing ($69 vs $209), Celeron 2.40 was $140 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2.40 delivers 5.0 pts/$ vs 1.7 pts/$ for the Core Solo T1200 — making the Celeron 2.40 the 98.6% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 2.40	Core Solo T1200
MSRP	$69-67%	$209
Performance per Dollar	5.0+194%	1.7
Release Date	2003	2006

Search Celeron 2.40 on Amazon

Search Core Solo T1200 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.