Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron Mobile 700MHz Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 56181% 3298%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 75669% 4475%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 54438% 3193%
Watch Dogs Legion 75669% 4475%
FIFA 21 52538% 3078%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 63650% 3749%
Godfall 108588% 6462%
Grand Theft Auto VI 92400% 5485%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 87400% 5183%
Genshin Impact 42513% 2473%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz is very slightly better than the Intel Celeron Mobile 700MHz 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 U1400 was released less than a year after the Celeron Mobile 700MHz, and so they are likely to have similar levels of support, and similarly optimized performance 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 Mobile 700MHz 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 Mobile 700MHz 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 Mobile 700MHz 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 Core Solo U1400 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 Core Solo U1400 has a 1920 KB bigger L2 cache than the Celeron Mobile 700MHz, but neither of the CPUs have L3 caches, so the Core Solo U1400 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 Solo U1400 has a 9 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Celeron Mobile 700MHz, and was created with a 115 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Core Solo U1400 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 CodenameCoppermineYonah
MoBo SocketSocket 495Socket 479
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date30 Mar 200023 Apr 2006
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed0.7 GHzvs1.2 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus 100 MHzvs-
Max TDP15 Wvs6 W
Lithography180 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width32 Bitvs-
Voltage Range1.6V KBvs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size32 KBvs64 KB
L2 Cache Size128 KBvs2048 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 Size27.2mm x 31mmvs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewThe next generation Celeron was the 'Coppermine-128' (sometimes known as the Celeron II). These were a derivative of Intel's Coppermine Pentium III and were released on 29 March 2000. Like the Mendocino, the Celeron-128 used 128 KB of on-chip L2 cache and was (initially) restricted to a 66 MHz Front Side Bus Speed, But the big news was the addition of SSE instructions, due to the new Coppermine core. Besides only having half the L2 cache (128 KB instead of 256 KB) and the lower FSB (66-100 MHz instead of 100-133 MHz), the Coppermine Celeron was identical to the Coppermine Pentium III.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.