Core Solo T1400 vs Opteron 142

Core Solo T1400 vs Opteron 142 Performance Spectrum

Core Solo T1400

1 / 1

428

0.0%

445

+4.0%

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 Opteron 142 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 Opteron 142: 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

✅Costs $92 less on MSRP ($200 MSRP vs $292 MSRP).
✅Delivers 40.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 2.1 vs 1.5 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $292 MSRP).
✅Draws 2W instead of 85W, a 83W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (428 vs 445).

Opteron 142

2003

Why buy it

✅+4% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.5 vs 2.1 PassMark/$ ($292 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
❌4150% higher power demand at 85W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Solo T1400 better than Opteron 142?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 142 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Solo T1400 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Opteron 142 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% 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 $92 cheaper on MSRP at $200 MSRP versus $292 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Opteron 142 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 4% better PassMark. It is also 40.4% better value on MSRP (2.1 vs 1.5 PassMark/$), 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 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core Solo T1400 vs Opteron 142 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.

Opteron 142

The Opteron 142 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 445 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core Solo T1400 and Opteron 142 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 Opteron 142 — a 13.4% clock advantage for the Core Solo T1400. The Core Solo T1400 uses the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture (65 nm), while the Opteron 142 uses SledgeHammer (2003−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Core Solo T1400 scores 428 against the Opteron 142's 445 — a 3.9% lead for the Opteron 142. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Opteron 142
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.83 GHz+14%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.83 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB
Process	65 nm-50%	130 nm
Architecture	Yonah (2005−2006)	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
PassMark	428	445+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Solo T1400 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Opteron 142 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Opteron 142
Socket	PGA478	940
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR-333
Max RAM Capacity	—	8 GB
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core Solo T1400) / AMD-V (Opteron 142). Primary use case: Opteron 142 targets Server.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Opteron 142
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	AMD-V
Target Use	—	Server

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core Solo T1400 was priced at $200, while the Opteron 142 came in at $292. On launch pricing ($200 vs $292), Core Solo T1400 was $92 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Solo T1400 delivers 2.1 pts/$ vs 1.5 pts/$ for the Opteron 142 — making the Core Solo T1400 the 33.6% better value option.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Opteron 142
MSRP	$200-32%	$292
Performance per Dollar	2.1+40%	1.5
Release Date	2006	2003

Search Core Solo T1400 on Amazon

Search Opteron 142 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.