Core m3-7Y32 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Core m3-7Y32
Celeron Dual-Core T1400
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 Core m3-7Y32 is positioned at rank 1090 and the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 is on rank 638, so the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Core m3-7Y32
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core m3-7Y32 | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($281) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | ✨ Modern (Kaby Lake (2016−2019) / 14 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Merom-2M (2008) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core m3-7Y32 | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+2739%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($281) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
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 Core m3-7Y32 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Core m3-7Y32
The Core m3-7Y32 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 21 April 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,697 points. Launch price was $281.
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.
Processing Power
The Core m3-7Y32 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron Dual-Core T1400's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Core m3-7Y32 versus 1.73 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 — a 53.7% clock advantage for the Core m3-7Y32. The Core m3-7Y32 uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses Merom-2M (2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Core m3-7Y32 scores 2,697 against the Celeron Dual-Core T1400's 2,725 — a 1% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T1400.
| Feature | Core m3-7Y32 | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 4 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3 GHz+73% | 1.73 GHz |
| Base Clock | 1.1 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 4 MB | — |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 512 kB |
| Process | 14 nm-78% | 65 nm |
| Architecture | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) | Merom-2M (2008) |
| PassMark | 2,697 | 2,725+1% |
Memory & Platform
The Core m3-7Y32 uses the FCBGA1515 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core m3-7Y32 | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1515 | P |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+173% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR2-667 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 2 |
| ECC Support | — | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Core m3-7Y32) / No (Celeron Dual-Core T1400). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1400 rivals Pentium T2370.
| Feature | Core m3-7Y32 | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | No |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Core m3-7Y32 launched at $281 MSRP, while the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 debuted at $80. At current prices ($281 vs $10), the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 is $271 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core m3-7Y32 delivers 9.6 pts/$ vs 272.5 pts/$ for the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 — making the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 the 186.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core m3-7Y32 | Celeron Dual-Core T1400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $281 | $80-72% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $281 | $10-96% |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.6 | 272.5+2739% |
| Release Date | 2017 | 2008 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core m3-7Y32 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400
