Celeron 2.60 vs Core Solo T1350

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 2.60 vs Core Solo T1350 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 2.60 vs Core Solo T1350: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.60

2003

Why buy it

✅Costs $147 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Delivers 258.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.3 vs 2.0 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (385 vs 405).
❌3550% higher power demand at 73W vs 2W.

Core Solo T1350

2006

Why buy it

✅+5.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 2W instead of 73W, a 71W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.0 vs 7.3 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core Solo T1350 better than Celeron 2.60?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.60 is ahead with a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core Solo T1350 pulls ahead with 5.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Solo T1350 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core Solo T1350 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core Solo T1350 comes in 277.4% more expensive on MSRP at $200 MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you 5.2% better PassMark. Celeron 2.60 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2003 platform. Even with 258.7% better value on paper (7.3 vs 2.0 PassMark/$), 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 T1350 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 2.60 vs Core Solo T1350 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2.60

The Celeron 2.60 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 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: 385 points. Launch price was $69.

Core Solo T1350

The Core Solo T1350 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 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.86 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: 405 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.60 and Core Solo T1350 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron 2.60 versus 1.86 GHz on the Core Solo T1350 — a 33.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.60. The Celeron 2.60 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Core Solo T1350 uses Yonah (2005−2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.60 scores 385 against the Core Solo T1350's 405 — a 5.1% lead for the Core Solo T1350. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Core Solo T1350
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+40%	1.86 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	128 kB	2 MB+1500%
Process	130 nm	65 nm-50%
Architecture	Northwood (2002−2004)	Yonah (2005−2006)
PassMark	385	405+5%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA478 socket with PCIe 1.1.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Core Solo T1350
Socket	PGA478	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-400	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 2.60) / not specified (Core Solo T1350). Primary use case: Celeron 2.60 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.60 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Core Solo T1350
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	No	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 2.60 was priced at $53, while the Core Solo T1350 came in at $200. On launch pricing ($53 vs $200), Celeron 2.60 was $147 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2.60 delivers 7.3 pts/$ vs 2.0 pts/$ for the Core Solo T1350 — making the Celeron 2.60 the 112.8% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Core Solo T1350
MSRP	$53-74%	$200
Performance per Dollar	7.3+265%	2.0
Release Date	2003	2006

Search Celeron 2.60 on Amazon

Search Core Solo T1350 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.