Core Solo T1200 vs Celeron 2.40

CPU

GPU

Core Solo T1200

1 Cores1 Thrd2 WWMax: 1.5 GHz2006

Celeron 2.40

1 Cores1 Thrd73 WWMax: 2.4 GHz2003

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Solo T1200

1 / 1

355

+2.9%

345

0.0%

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 Solo T1200 is positioned at rank 1241 and the Celeron 2.40 is on rank 1072, so the Celeron 2.40 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Core Solo T1200

#1229

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

17259%

#1230

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

17006%

#1231

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

15612%

#1232

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

15541%

#1233

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

15399%

#1235

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

14871%

#1236

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

14259%

#1237

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

14235%

#1238

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

13853%

#1241

Core Solo T1200

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

100%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.40

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

62343%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

58908%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

42772%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

12885%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

10207%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

8929%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

5114%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

5047%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

4596%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

4595%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

4544%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

4421%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

4359%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

4342%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

4302%

#1072

Celeron 2.40

MSRP: $69|Avg: $13

100%

#1073

Sempron 2800+

MSRP: $65|Avg: $29

98%

#1074

Athlon 64 3100+

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

95%

#1075

Sempron 3600+

MSRP: $105|Avg: $20

92%

#1076

Celeron 2.80

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

86%

#1077

Athlon 64 X2 6000+

MSRP: $450|Avg: $20

81%

#1078

Athlon 64 3600+

MSRP: $149|Avg: $15

80%

#1079

Core 2 Quad Q6700

MSRP: $530|Avg: $50

79%

#1080

Athlon 64 2600+

MSRP: $100|Avg: $5

78%

#1081

Celeron 2.20

MSRP: $79|Avg: $15

77%

#1082

Athlon 64 X2 5200+

MSRP: $420|Avg: $15

72%

#1083

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

MSRP: $328|Avg: $10

72%

#1084

Core i7-975

MSRP: $999|Avg: $50

71%

#1085

Athlon XP 2600+

MSRP: $98|Avg: $10

69%

#1086

Core i7-965

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $40

68%

#1087

Athlon 64 FX-74

MSRP: $499|Avg: $50

66%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The Celeron 2.40 leads in gaming performance. However, the Core Solo T1200 is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 2.9% greater multi-core processing power.

Insight	Core Solo T1200	Celeron 2.40
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	✅ More affordable ($10)	⚠️ Higher cost ($13)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Yonah (2005−2006) / 65 nm)	🛑 Legacy (NetBurst (2000−2006) / 130 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Core Solo T1200 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 23% cheaper ($10 vs $13) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Core Solo T1200	Celeron 2.40
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+34%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($10)	⚠️ Higher cost ($13)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Core Solo T1200 Benchmark Check

Celeron 2.40 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Solo T1200 and Celeron 2.40

Core Solo T1200

The Core Solo T1200 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. Max frequency: 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: BGA479. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 355 points. Launch price was $249.

Celeron 2.40

The Celeron 2.40 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 345 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core Solo T1200 and Celeron 2.40 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Core Solo T1200 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Core Solo T1200 uses the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 2.40 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Core Solo T1200 scores 355 against the Celeron 2.40's 345 — a 2.9% lead for the Core Solo T1200. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Core Solo T1200	Celeron 2.40
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.4 GHz+60%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+1500%	128 kB
Process	65 nm-50%	130 nm
Architecture	Yonah (2005−2006)	NetBurst (2000−2006)
PassMark	355+3%	345
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	150

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Solo T1200 uses the BGA479 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 2.40 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Solo T1200	Celeron 2.40
Socket	BGA479	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR1-333
Max RAM Capacity	—	2 GB
RAM Channels	—	1
ECC Support	—	❌
PCIe Lanes	—	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core Solo T1200) / None (Celeron 2.40). Primary use case: Celeron 2.40 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.40 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.

Feature	Core Solo T1200	Celeron 2.40
Integrated GPU	—	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	None
Target Use	—	Legacy Desktop

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Solo T1200 launched at $209 MSRP, while the Celeron 2.40 debuted at $69. At current prices ($10 vs $13), the Core Solo T1200 is $3 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Solo T1200 delivers 35.5 pts/$ vs 26.5 pts/$ for the Celeron 2.40 — making the Core Solo T1200 the 28.9% better value option.