Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs FX-4130

Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs FX-4130 Performance Spectrum

Celeron Dual-Core T1400

2 / 2

2,725

+0.3%

2,718

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs FX-4130 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 Dual-Core T1400 vs FX-4130: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron Dual-Core T1400

2008

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $20 less on MSRP ($80 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
✅Delivers 25.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 34.1 vs 27.2 PassMark/$ ($80 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-4130 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌309.6% higher power demand at 512W vs 125W.

FX-4130

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 125W instead of 512W, a 387W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,718 vs 2,725).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.2 vs 34.1 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is FX-4130 better than Celeron Dual-Core T1400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, FX-4130 is ahead with a 4.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T1400 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T1400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

FX-4130 is still the much better call for a fresh build. FX-4130 comes in 25.0% more expensive on MSRP at $100 MSRP versus $80 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron Dual-Core T1400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 25.3% better value on paper (34.1 vs 27.2 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on P.

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

FX-4130 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs FX-4130 Technical Specifications

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

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.

FX-4130

The FX-4130 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 August 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,718 points. Launch price was $112.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the FX-4130 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the FX-4130 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.73 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 versus 3.9 GHz on the FX-4130 — a 77.1% clock advantage for the FX-4130. The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses the Merom-2M (2008) architecture (65 nm), while the FX-4130 uses Zambezi (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 scores 2,725 against the FX-4130's 2,718 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T1400.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1400	FX-4130
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.73 GHz	3.9 GHz+125%
Base Clock	—	3.8 GHz
L2 Cache	512 kB	4096 kB+700%
Process	65 nm	32 nm-51%
Architecture	Merom-2M (2008)	Zambezi (2011−2012)
PassMark	2,725	2,718

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the FX-4130 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1400	FX-4130
Socket	P	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron Dual-Core T1400) / not specified (FX-4130). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 rivals Pentium T2370.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1400	FX-4130
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	No	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 was priced at $80, while the FX-4130 came in at $100. On launch pricing ($80 vs $100), Celeron Dual-Core T1400 was $20 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 delivers 34.1 pts/$ vs 27.2 pts/$ for the FX-4130 — making the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 the 22.5% better value option.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T1400	FX-4130
MSRP	$80-20%	$100
Performance per Dollar	34.1+25%	27.2
Release Date	2008	2012

Search Celeron Dual-Core T1400 on Amazon

Search FX-4130 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.