Core Solo T1400 vs Xeon 2.66

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 Xeon 2.66 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 Xeon 2.66: 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 $137 less on MSRP ($200 MSRP vs $337 MSRP).
✅Delivers 62.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 2.1 vs 1.3 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $337 MSRP).
✅Draws 2W instead of 89W, a 87W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (428 vs 445).

Xeon 2.66

2002

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.3 vs 2.1 PassMark/$ ($337 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
❌4350% higher power demand at 89W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 2.66 better than Core Solo T1400?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 2.66 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 gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon 2.66 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.4% 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, Xeon 2.66 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?

Xeon 2.66 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon 2.66 comes in 68.5% more expensive on MSRP at $337 MSRP versus $200 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core Solo T1400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2006 platform. Even with 62.1% better value on paper (2.1 vs 1.3 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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 2002). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core Solo T1400 vs Xeon 2.66 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.

Xeon 2.66

The Xeon 2.66 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Prestonia (2002) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.66 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA604. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 445 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core Solo T1400 and Xeon 2.66 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.83 GHz on the Core Solo T1400 versus 2.66 GHz on the Xeon 2.66 — a 37% clock advantage for the Xeon 2.66. The Core Solo T1400 uses the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture (65 nm), while the Xeon 2.66 uses Prestonia (2002) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Core Solo T1400 scores 428 against the Xeon 2.66's 445 — a 3.9% lead for the Xeon 2.66. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Xeon 2.66
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.83 GHz	2.66 GHz+45%
Base Clock	1.83 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	512 kB
Process	65 nm-50%	130 nm
Architecture	Yonah (2005−2006)	Prestonia (2002)
PassMark	428	445+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Solo T1400 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Xeon 2.66 uses PGA604 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Xeon 2.66
Socket	PGA478	PGA604
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core Solo T1400 was priced at $200, while the Xeon 2.66 came in at $337. On launch pricing ($200 vs $337), Core Solo T1400 was $137 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Solo T1400 delivers 2.1 pts/$ vs 1.3 pts/$ for the Xeon 2.66 — making the Core Solo T1400 the 47.4% better value option.

Feature	Core Solo T1400	Xeon 2.66
MSRP	$200-41%	$337
Performance per Dollar	2.1+62%	1.3
Release Date	2006	2002

Search Core Solo T1400 on Amazon

Search Xeon 2.66 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.