Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs A10-5700
Celeron Dual-Core T1400
A10-5700
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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 Dual-Core T1400 is positioned at rank 638 and the A10-5700 is on rank 448, so the A10-5700 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Performance Per Dollar A10-5700
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A10-5700 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Merom-2M (2008) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Trinity (2012−2013) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A10-5700 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and A10-5700
Celeron Dual-Core T1400
The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom-2M (2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.73 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,725 points. Launch price was $69.
A10-5700
The A10-5700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,747 points. Launch price was $130.
Processing Power
The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the A10-5700 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the A10-5700 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.73 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 versus 4 GHz on the A10-5700 — a 79.2% clock advantage for the A10-5700. The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses the Merom-2M (2008) architecture (65 nm), while the A10-5700 uses Trinity (2012−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 scores 2,725 against the A10-5700's 2,747 — a 0.8% lead for the A10-5700.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A10-5700 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 1.73 GHz | 4 GHz+131% |
| Base Clock | — | 3.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 1 MB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 65 nm | 32 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Merom-2M (2008) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 2,725 | 2,747 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the A10-5700 uses FM2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 versus 1866 on the A10-5700 — the A10-5700 supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A10-5700 supports up to 64 of RAM compared to 4 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1400) vs 16 (A10-5700) — the A10-5700 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GM965,GL960 (Celeron Dual-Core T1400) and A55,A75,A85X (A10-5700).
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A10-5700 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | P | FM2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | 1866+93200% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB+6553500% | 64 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron Dual-Core T1400) vs true (A10-5700). The A10-5700 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 7660D), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 rivals Pentium T2370; A10-5700 rivals Core i3-3220.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 | A10-5700 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Radeon HD 7660D |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | No | true |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and A10-5700
