Core Solo T1400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Core Solo T1400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ Performance Spectrum

Core Solo T1400

1 / 1

428

+1.9%

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

1 / 1

420

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 T1400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ 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 T1400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+: 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 T1400

2006

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 2W instead of 512W, a 510W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $200 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

2004

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Solo T1400 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (420 vs 428).
❌25500% higher power demand at 512W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Solo T1400 better than Mobile Athlon 64 2800+?

Yes. Core Solo T1400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 9.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.9% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Solo T1400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 9.4% 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 T1400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core Solo T1400 is the better buy right now. Core Solo T1400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $200 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (2.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core Solo T1400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2006 vs 2004) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core Solo T1400 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ Technical Specifications

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

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.

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

The Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the Oakville (2003−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 512K. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 420 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core Solo T1400 and Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.83 GHz on the Core Solo T1400 versus 1.8 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ — a 1.7% clock advantage for the Core Solo T1400. The Core Solo T1400 uses the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture (65 nm), while the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ uses Oakville (2003−2004). In PassMark, the Core Solo T1400 scores 428 against the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+'s 420 — a 1.9% lead for the Core Solo T1400.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Mobile Athlon 64 2800+
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.83 GHz+2%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	1.83 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	2 MB	512K+25500%
Process	65 nm	—
Architecture	Yonah (2005−2006)	Oakville (2003−2004)
PassMark	428+2%	420

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Solo T1400 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Mobile Athlon 64 2800+
Socket	PGA478	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	—	400
Max RAM Capacity	—	2
RAM Channels	—	1
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core Solo T1400) / false (Mobile Athlon 64 2800+). Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ rivals Pentium M 725.