Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron M 807 1.5GHz Core Solo T1400 1.83GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 1666% 1635%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 2277% 2236%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 1611% 1581%
FIFA 21 1551% 1523%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 1900% 1865%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 2645% 2597%
Watch Dogs Legion 2277% 2236%
Horizon: Zero Dawn 1900% 1865%
Grand Theft Auto VI 2802% 2752%
Genshin Impact 1237% 1214%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Core Solo T1400 1.83GHz is marginally better than the Intel Celeron M 807 1.5GHz 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 Celeron M 807 was released over three years more recently than the Core Solo T1400, and so the Celeron M 807 is likely to have far better levels of support, and will be much more optimized and ultimately superior to the Core Solo T1400 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 Celeron M 807 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 Celeron M 807 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 Celeron M 807 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 0.33 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 M 807 has a 254 KB bigger L2 cache than the Core Solo T1400, and although the Core Solo T1400 does not appear to have an L3 cache, its larger L2 cache means that it wins out in this area.

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 M 807 has a 10 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Core Solo T1400, and was created with a 33 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Celeron M 807 will consume slightly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill slightly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameSandy BridgeYonah
MoBo SocketBGA 1023Socket 479
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date29 Jul 201201 May 2006
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed1.5 GHzvs1.83 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus -vs667 MHz
Max TDP17 Wvs27 W
Lithography32 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 Size256 KBvs2 KB
L2 Cache Speed-vs-
L3 Cache Size1.5 MBvs-
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 Size-vs35mm x 35mm
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewSandy Bridge is the codename for a microarchitecture developed by Intel beginning in 2005 for central processing units in computers to replace the Nehalem microarchitecture. Intel demonstrated a Sandy Bridge processor in 2009, and released first products based on the architecture in January 2011 under the Core brand.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.