Core Solo T1400 vs Pentium M 730

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 Pentium M 730 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 Pentium M 730: 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

✅Draws 2W instead of 27W, a 25W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (428 vs 435).
❌Launch MSRP is still $200 MSRP, while Pentium M 730 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Pentium M 730

2005

Why buy it

✅+1.6% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌1250% higher power demand at 27W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Solo T1400 better than Pentium M 730?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core Solo T1400 is ahead with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Pentium M 730 pulls ahead with 1.6% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Pentium M 730 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.6% 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 $200 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Pentium M 730 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.6% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (2.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core Solo T1400 vs Pentium M 730 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.

Pentium M 730

The Pentium M 730 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Dothan (2004−2005) 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: 2 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 27 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 435 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core Solo T1400 and Pentium M 730 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 Pentium M 730 — 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 Pentium M 730 uses Dothan (2004−2005) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Core Solo T1400 scores 428 against the Pentium M 730's 435 — a 1.6% lead for the Pentium M 730. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Pentium M 730
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	2 MB
Process	65 nm-28%	90 nm
Architecture	Yonah (2005−2006)	Dothan (2004−2005)
PassMark	428	435+2%