Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Core Solo T1400 1.83GHz Celeron 1333MHz
Cyberpunk 2077 1635% 2814%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 2236% 3823%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 1581% 2724%
FIFA 21 1523% 2626%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 1865% 3201%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 2597% 4431%
Watch Dogs Legion 2236% 3823%
Horizon: Zero Dawn 1865% 3201%
Grand Theft Auto VI 2752% 4690%
Genshin Impact 1214% 2106%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Core Solo T1400 1.83GHz is very slightly better than the Intel Celeron 1333MHz when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

The Core Solo T1400 was released over three years more recently than the Celeron 1333MHz, and so the Core Solo T1400 is likely to have far better levels of support, and will be much more optimized and ultimately superior to the Celeron 1333MHz when running the latest games.

Both CPUs exhibit very poor performance, so rather than upgrading from one to the other you should consider looking at more powerful CPUs. Neither of these will be able to run the latest games in any playable way.

The Core Solo T1400 and the Celeron 1333MHz both have 1 cores, and so are quite likely to struggle with the latest games, or at least bottleneck high-end graphics cards when running them. With a decent accompanying GPU, the Core Solo T1400 and the Celeron 1333MHz may still be able to run slightly older games fairly effectively.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The Core Solo T1400 and Celeron 1333MHz are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the Core Solo T1400 has a 0.5 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. In this case, however, the difference is enough that it possibly indicates the superiority of the .

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The Celeron 1333MHz has a 254 KB bigger L2 cache than the Core Solo T1400, but neither of the CPUs have L3 caches, so the Celeron 1333MHz wins out in this area with its larger L2 cache.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.

The Celeron 1333MHz has a 8 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Core Solo T1400. However, the Core Solo T1400 was created with a 65 nm smaller manufacturing technology. Overall, by taking both into account, the Core Solo T1400 is likely the CPU with the lower heat production and power requirements, by quite a wide margin.

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameYonahTualatin-256
MoBo SocketSocket 479Socket 478/Socket N
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date01 May 200624 Jun 2002
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed1.83 GHzvs1.33 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus 667 MHzvs-
Max TDP27 Wvs19 W
Lithography65 nmvs130 nm
Bit Width32 Bitvs-
Voltage Range1.1625V - 1.30V KBvs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size64 KBvs16 KB
L2 Cache Size2 KBvs256 KB
L2 Cache Speed-vs-
L3 Cache Size-vs-
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphicsno
Base GPU Frequency-vs-
Max GPU Frequency-vs-
DirectX-vs-
Displays Supported-vs-
Comparison

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size35mm x 35mmvs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewYonah was the code name for (the core of) Intel's first generation of 65 nm process mobile microprocessors, based on the Banias/Dothan-core Pentium M microarchitecture. SIMD performance has been improved through the addition of SSE3 instructions and improvements to SSE and SSE2 implementations, while integer performance decreased slightly due to higher latency cache. Additionally, Yonah includes support for the NX bit.The Celeron brand has been used by Intel for several distinct ranges of x86 CPUs targeted at budget personal computers. Celeron processors can run all IA-32 computer programs, but their performance is somewhat lower when compared to similar CPUs with higher-priced Intel CPU brands. For example, the Celeron brand will often have less cache memory, or have advanced features purposely disabled. These missing features have had a variable impact on performance. In some cases, the effect was significant and in other cases the differences were relatively minor. Many of the Celeron designs have achieved a very high bang for the buck, while at other times, the performance difference has been noticeable. This has been the primary justification for the higher cost of other Intel CPU brands versus the Celeron range.