Core Solo T1350 vs Celeron 2.60

Core Solo T1350

1 Cores1 Thrd2 WWMax: 1.86 GHz2006

Celeron 2.60

1 Cores1 Thrd73 WWMax: 2.6 GHz2003

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Solo T1350

1 / 1

405

+5.2%

385

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 T1350 is positioned at rank 1238 and the Celeron 2.60 is on rank 1045, so the Celeron 2.60 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 T1350

#1226

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

14453%

#1227

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

14241%

#1228

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

13074%

#1229

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

13015%

#1230

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

12896%

#1232

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

12453%

#1233

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

11941%

#1234

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

11921%

#1235

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

11601%

#1238

Core Solo T1350

MSRP: $200|Avg: $70

100%

#1240

Core Solo T1300

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

91%

#1241

Core Solo T1200

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

84%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.60

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

42936%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

40570%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

29457%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

8874%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

7029%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

6149%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

3522%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

3476%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

3165%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

3165%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

3129%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

3045%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

3002%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

2990%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

2963%

#1045

Celeron 2.60

MSRP: $53|Avg: $10

100%

#1046

Core i7-990X

MSRP: $999|Avg: $225

98%

#1047

Phenom X4 9750B

MSRP: $215|Avg: $34

97%

#1048

Core 2 Duo E8200

MSRP: $163|Avg: $20

97%

#1049

Core 2 Quad Q9450

MSRP: $316|Avg: $15

96%

#1050

Core 2 Duo E8600

MSRP: $200|Avg: $95

95%

#1051

Core 2 Duo E6320

MSRP: $163|Avg: $5

94%

#1052

Core i7-980X

MSRP: $999|Avg: $150

94%

#1053

Athlon 64 X2 3600+

MSRP: $150|Avg: $10

94%

#1054

Core 2 Duo E6420

MSRP: $183|Avg: $10

93%

#1055

Pentium D 940

MSRP: $132|Avg: $15

91%

#1056

Phenom X4 9600B

MSRP: $278|Avg: $20

91%

#1057

Phenom II X3 B77

MSRP: $281|Avg: $35

90%

#1058

Core 2 Duo E6300

MSRP: $163|Avg: $5

89%

#1059

Core 2 Duo E6400

MSRP: $183|Avg: $10

88%

#1060

Core 2 Duo E8300

MSRP: $163|Avg: $20

88%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The Celeron 2.60 leads in gaming performance. However, the Core Solo T1350 is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 5.1% greater multi-core processing power.

Insight	Core Solo T1350	Celeron 2.60
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	⚠️ Higher cost ($70)	✅ More affordable ($10)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Yonah (2005−2006) / 65 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Northwood (2002−2004) / 130 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Celeron 2.60 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 86% cheaper ($10 vs $70) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Core Solo T1350	Celeron 2.60
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+565%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️ Higher cost ($70)	✅ More affordable ($10)

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 T1350 Benchmark Check

Celeron 2.60 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Solo T1350 and Celeron 2.60

Core Solo T1350

The Core Solo T1350 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. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.86 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: 405 points. Launch price was $249.

Celeron 2.60

The Celeron 2.60 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 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: 385 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core Solo T1350 and Celeron 2.60 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.86 GHz on the Core Solo T1350 versus 2.6 GHz on the Celeron 2.60 — a 33.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.60. The Core Solo T1350 uses the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 2.60 uses Northwood (2002−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Core Solo T1350 scores 405 against the Celeron 2.60's 385 — a 5.1% lead for the Core Solo T1350. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Core Solo T1350	Celeron 2.60
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.86 GHz	2.6 GHz+40%
Base Clock	1.86 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+1500%	128 kB
Process	65 nm-50%	130 nm
Architecture	Yonah (2005−2006)	Northwood (2002−2004)
PassMark	405+5%	385

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA478 socket with PCIe 1.1.

Feature	Core Solo T1350	Celeron 2.60
Socket	PGA478	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR2-400
Max RAM Capacity	—	4 GB
RAM Channels	—	1
ECC Support	—	❌
PCIe Lanes	—	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core Solo T1350) / No (Celeron 2.60). Primary use case: Celeron 2.60 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.60 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.

Feature	Core Solo T1350	Celeron 2.60
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	No
Target Use	—	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Solo T1350 launched at $200 MSRP, while the Celeron 2.60 debuted at $53. At current prices ($70 vs $10), the Celeron 2.60 is $60 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Solo T1350 delivers 5.8 pts/$ vs 38.5 pts/$ for the Celeron 2.60 — making the Celeron 2.60 the 147.7% better value option.