Core Solo T1400 vs Celeron 420

Core Solo T1400

1 Cores1 Thrd2 WWMax: 1.83 GHz2006

Celeron 420

1 Cores1 Thrd35 WWMax: 1.6 GHz2007

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Solo T1400

1 / 1

428

+0.7%

425

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 T1400 is positioned at rank 1236 and the Celeron 420 is on rank 982, so the Celeron 420 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 T1400

#1224

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

13710%

#1225

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

13509%

#1226

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

12402%

#1227

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

12346%

#1228

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

12233%

#1230

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

11813%

#1231

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

11327%

#1232

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

11308%

#1233

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

11005%

#1236

Core Solo T1400

MSRP: $200|Avg: $5

100%

#1237

Core i7-940XM

MSRP: $1096|Avg: N/A

97%

#1238

Core Solo T1350

MSRP: $200|Avg: $70

95%

#1240

Core Solo T1300

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

86%

#1241

Core Solo T1200

MSRP: $209|Avg: $10

79%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 420

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

28598%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

27022%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

19620%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

5911%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

4682%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

4096%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

2346%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

2315%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

2108%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

2108%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

2084%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

2028%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

2000%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

1992%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

1974%

#304

Core i7-6950X

MSRP: $1723|Avg: $180

94%

#982

Celeron 420

MSRP: $39|Avg: $15

100%

#983

Athlon II X4 615e

MSRP: $186|Avg: $30

100%

#984

Athlon X2 BE-2350

MSRP: $90|Avg: $10

99%

#985

Core 2 Quad Q8300

MSRP: $179|Avg: $10

98%

#986

Core i7-860

MSRP: $284|Avg: $30

97%

#987

Core i7-870

MSRP: $300|Avg: $80

97%

#988

Athlon 64 X2 5000+

MSRP: $136|Avg: $42

96%

#989

Core i3-6102E

MSRP: $225|Avg: $35

96%

#990

Pentium Dual-Core E2160

MSRP: $84|Avg: $5

96%

#991

Pentium Dual-Core E2210

MSRP: $98|Avg: $15

94%

#992

Core 2 Duo E7500

MSRP: $113|Avg: $10

94%

#993

Core 2 Quad Q9505

MSRP: $213|Avg: $150

94%

#996

Core i7-930

MSRP: $294|Avg: $20

93%

#997

Core i7-920

MSRP: $284|Avg: $79

93%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Core Solo T1400 delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Celeron 420 in both compute-intensive tasks (0.7% faster) and gaming workloads.

Insight	Core Solo T1400	Celeron 420
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	✅ More affordable ($5)	⚠️ Higher cost ($15)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Yonah (2005−2006) / 65 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Conroe-L (2007−2008) / 65 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Core Solo T1400 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 67% cheaper ($5 vs $15) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Core Solo T1400	Celeron 420
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+202%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($5)	⚠️ Higher cost ($15)

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 T1400 Benchmark Check

Celeron 420 Benchmark Check

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Solo T1400 and Celeron 420

Core Solo T1400

The Core Solo T1400 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 1.83 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): 27 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 428 points. Launch price was $249.

Celeron 420

The Celeron 420 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 425 points. Launch price was $23.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core Solo T1400 and Celeron 420 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.83 GHz on the Core Solo T1400 versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 420 — a 13.4% clock advantage for the Core Solo T1400 (base: 1.83 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Core Solo T1400 uses the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 420 uses Conroe-L (2007−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Core Solo T1400 scores 428 against the Celeron 420's 425 — a 0.7% lead for the Core Solo T1400. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Celeron 420
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.83 GHz+14%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.83 GHz+14%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	512 kB (total)
Process	65 nm	65 nm
Architecture	Yonah (2005−2006)	Conroe-L (2007−2008)
PassMark	428	425

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Solo T1400 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 420 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Celeron 420
Socket	PGA478	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	—	16 GB
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	❌
PCIe Lanes	—	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core Solo T1400) / No (Celeron 420). Primary use case: Celeron 420 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 420 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Celeron 420
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	No
Target Use	—	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Solo T1400 launched at $200 MSRP, while the Celeron 420 debuted at $39. At current prices ($5 vs $15), the Core Solo T1400 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Solo T1400 delivers 85.6 pts/$ vs 28.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 420 — making the Core Solo T1400 the 100.5% better value option.