Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Core 2 Solo U2100 1.07GHz Core Solo T1400 1.83GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 2872% 1635%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 3901% 2236%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 2780% 1581%
FIFA 21 2680% 1523%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 3266% 1865%
Watch Dogs Legion 3901% 2236%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 4520% 2597%
Horizon: Zero Dawn 3266% 1865%
Grand Theft Auto VI 4784% 2752%
Genshin Impact 2150% 1214%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Core Solo T1400 1.83GHz is very slightly better than the Intel Core 2 Solo U2100 1.07GHz 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 2 Solo was released over a year more recently than the Core Solo T1400, and so the Core 2 Solo is likely to have better levels of support, and will be more optimized for 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 2 Solo and the Core Solo T1400 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 2 Solo and the Core Solo T1400 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 2 Solo and Core Solo T1400 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 0.763 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 probably a good indicator that the is superior.

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 Core 2 Solo has a 1022 KB bigger L2 cache than the Core Solo T1400, but neither of the CPUs have L3 caches, so the Core 2 Solo 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 Core 2 Solo has a 21 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Core Solo T1400 (though they were created with the same size 65 nm manufacturing technology). What this means is the Core 2 Solo will consume significantly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill significantly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameMeromYonah
MoBo SocketSocket 479Socket 479
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date05 Sep 200701 May 2006
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed1.067 GHzvs1.83 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus -vs667 MHz
Max TDP6 Wvs27 W
Lithography65 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width-vs32 Bit
Voltage Range-vs1.1625V - 1.30V KB
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size64 KBvs64 KB
L2 Cache Size1024 KBvs2 KB
L3 Cache Size-vs-
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphicsnono

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size-vs35mm x 35mm
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewMerom is the code name for various Intel processors that are sold as Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Solo, Pentium Dual-Core and Celeron. It was the first mobile processor to be based on the Core microarchitecture, replacing the Enhanced Pentium M based Yonah processor. Merom has product code 80537, which is shared with Merom-2M and Merom-L that are very similar but have a smaller L2 cache. Merom-L has only one processor core and a different CPUID model. The desktop version of Merom is Conroe and the dual-socket server version is Woodcrest. Merom has subsequently been replaced by Penryn.Yonah 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.