Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron M 797 1.4GHz Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 1712% 3298%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 2339% 4475%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 1656% 3193%
FIFA 21 1595% 3078%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 1952% 3749%
Watch Dogs Legion 2339% 4475%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 2717% 5183%
Grand Theft Auto VI 2878% 5485%
Horizon: Zero Dawn 1952% 3749%
Genshin Impact 1272% 2473%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Celeron M 797 1.4GHz is very slightly better than the Intel Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz 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 797 was released over three years more recently than the Core Solo U1400, and so the Celeron M 797 is likely to have far better levels of support, and will be much more optimized and ultimately superior to the Core Solo U1400 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 797 and the Core Solo U1400 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 797 and the Core Solo U1400 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 797 and Core Solo U1400 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 Celeron M 797 has a 0.2 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. As such, we need to look elsewhere for more reliable comparisons.

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 Solo U1400 has a 1792 KB bigger L2 cache than the Celeron M 797, and although the Core Solo U1400 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 Core Solo U1400 has a 11 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Celeron M 797. However, the Celeron M 797 was created with a 33 nm smaller manufacturing technology. Overall, by taking both into account, the Celeron M 797 is likely the CPU with the lower heat production and power requirements, by quite a wide margin.

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameSandy BridgeYonah
MoBo SocketBGA 1023Socket 479
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date01 Jan 201223 Apr 2006
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed1.4 GHzvs1.2 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
Max TDP17 Wvs6 W
Lithography32 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width-vs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size64 KBvs64 KB
L2 Cache Size256 KBvs2048 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-vs-
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.