Core 2 Solo SU3500 vs Core Duo T2400

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.

Core 2 Solo SU3500 vs Core Duo T2400 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.

Core 2 Solo SU3500 vs Core Duo T2400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core 2 Solo SU3500

2009

Why buy it

✅Costs $32 less on MSRP ($262 MSRP vs $294 MSRP).
✅Delivers 10.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.6 vs 5.1 PassMark/$ ($262 MSRP vs $294 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,468 vs 1,488).
❌50% higher power demand at 3W vs 2W.

Core Duo T2400

2006

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 3W, a 1W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.1 vs 5.6 PassMark/$ ($294 MSRP vs $262 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core Duo T2400 better than Core 2 Solo SU3500?

Yes. Core Duo T2400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Duo T2400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.8% 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, Core Duo T2400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Core Duo T2400 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Core Duo T2400 comes in 12.2% more expensive on MSRP at $294 MSRP versus $262 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Solo SU3500 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 2.8% in the shared gaming data.

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

Core 2 Solo SU3500 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core 2 Solo SU3500 vs Core Duo T2400 Technical Specifications

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

Core 2 Solo SU3500

The Core 2 Solo SU3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 5.5 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,468 points. Launch price was $262.

Core Duo T2400

The Core Duo T2400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Janeiro 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.83 GHz, with boost up to 1.83 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: 1,488 points. Launch price was $16.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 2 Solo SU3500 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core Duo T2400 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Core Duo T2400 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3500 versus 1.83 GHz on the Core Duo T2400 — a 26.6% clock advantage for the Core Duo T2400 (base: 1.3 GHz vs 1.83 GHz). The Core 2 Solo SU3500 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Core Duo T2400 uses Yonah (2005−2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Solo SU3500 scores 1,468 against the Core Duo T2400's 1,488 — a 1.4% lead for the Core Duo T2400. L3 cache: 3 MB on the Core 2 Solo SU3500 vs 0 kB on the Core Duo T2400.

Feature	Core 2 Solo SU3500	Core Duo T2400
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	1.83 GHz+31%
Base Clock	1.3 GHz	1.83 GHz+41%
L3 Cache	3 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	3 MB+50%	2 MB
Process	45 nm-31%	65 nm
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Yonah (2005−2006)
PassMark	1,468	1,488+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Solo SU3500 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core Duo T2400 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core 2 Solo SU3500	Core Duo T2400
Socket	BGA956	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	—	4 GB
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core 2 Solo SU3500) / VT-x (Core Duo T2400). Primary use case: Core Duo T2400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Core Duo T2400 rivals Pentium T2310.

Feature	Core 2 Solo SU3500	Core Duo T2400
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x
Target Use	—	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core 2 Solo SU3500 was priced at $262, while the Core Duo T2400 came in at $294. On launch pricing ($262 vs $294), Core 2 Solo SU3500 was $32 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 2 Solo SU3500 delivers 5.6 pts/$ vs 5.1 pts/$ for the Core Duo T2400 — making the Core 2 Solo SU3500 the 10.2% better value option.

Feature	Core 2 Solo SU3500	Core Duo T2400
MSRP	$262-11%	$294
Performance per Dollar	5.6+10%	5.1
Release Date	2009	2006

Search Core 2 Solo SU3500 on Amazon

Search Core Duo T2400 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.