Core Solo T1200 vs E-240

Core Solo T1200 vs E-240 Performance Spectrum

Core Solo T1200

1 / 1

355

+5.0%

338

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

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.

Core Solo T1200 vs E-240 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 Solo T1200 vs E-240: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core Solo T1200

2006

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 2W instead of 512W, a 510W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $209 MSRP, while E-240 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

E-240

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Solo T1200 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (338 vs 355).
❌25500% higher power demand at 512W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Solo T1200 better than E-240?

Yes. Core Solo T1200 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 5% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Solo T1200 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.5% 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 Solo T1200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core Solo T1200 is the better buy right now. Core Solo T1200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $209 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (1.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E-240 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core Solo T1200 vs E-240 Technical Specifications

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

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.

E-240

The E-240 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 338 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core Solo T1200 and E-240 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Core Solo T1200 versus 1.5 GHz on the E-240 — identical boost frequencies. The Core Solo T1200 uses the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture (65 nm), while the E-240 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Core Solo T1200 scores 355 against the E-240's 338 — a 4.9% lead for the Core Solo T1200. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Core Solo T1200	E-240
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	512 kB
Process	65 nm	40 nm-38%
Architecture	Yonah (2005−2006)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	355+5%	338

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Solo T1200 uses the BGA479 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E-240 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.