Celeron D 352 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 D 352 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 D 352 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 D 352

2006

Why buy it

✅Costs $131 less on MSRP ($69 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Delivers 199.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 6.1 vs 2.0 PassMark/$ ($69 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Core Solo T1350.

Trade-offs

❌4100% higher power demand at 84W vs 2W.

Core Solo T1350

2006

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 84W, a 82W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (405 vs 418).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.0 vs 6.1 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $69 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron D 352.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron D 352 better than Core Solo T1350?

Yes. Celeron D 352 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, 3.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron D 352 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, Celeron D 352 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron D 352 is the better buy right now. Celeron D 352 comes in $131 cheaper on MSRP at $69 MSRP versus $200 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 199.2% better value on MSRP (6.1 vs 2.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron D 352 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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 D 352 vs Core Solo T1350 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron D 352

The Celeron D 352 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Cedar Mill (2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 86 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 418 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 D 352 and Core Solo T1350 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the Celeron D 352 versus 1.86 GHz on the Core Solo T1350 — a 53% clock advantage for the Celeron D 352 (base: 3.2 GHz vs 1.86 GHz). The Celeron D 352 uses the Cedar Mill (2006) architecture (65 nm), while the Core Solo T1350 uses Yonah (2005−2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron D 352 scores 418 against the Core Solo T1350's 405 — a 3.2% lead for the Celeron D 352. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron D 352	Core Solo T1350
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz+72%	1.86 GHz
Base Clock	3.2 GHz+72%	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	2 MB+300%
Process	65 nm	65 nm
Architecture	Cedar Mill (2006)	Yonah (2005−2006)
PassMark	418+3%	405
Geekbench 6 Single	180	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron D 352 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core Solo T1350 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron D 352	Core Solo T1350
Socket	LGA775	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	800	—
Max RAM Capacity	4	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: false (Celeron D 352) / not specified (Core Solo T1350). Primary use case: Celeron D 352 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron D 352 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.

Feature	Celeron D 352	Core Solo T1350
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	false	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron D 352 was priced at $69, while the Core Solo T1350 came in at $200. On launch pricing ($69 vs $200), Celeron D 352 was $131 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron D 352 delivers 6.1 pts/$ vs 2.0 pts/$ for the Core Solo T1350 — making the Celeron D 352 the 99.8% better value option.

Feature	Celeron D 352	Core Solo T1350
MSRP	$69-66%	$200
Performance per Dollar	6.1+205%	2.0
Release Date	2006	2006

Search Celeron D 352 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.