Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron Mobile 366MHz Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 99956% 3298%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 134600% 4475%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 96856% 3193%
FIFA 21 93478% 3078%
Watch Dogs Legion 134600% 4475%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 113233% 3749%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 155456% 5183%
Grand Theft Auto VI 164344% 5485%
Godfall 193122% 6462%
Genshin Impact 75656% 2473%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz is very slightly better than the Intel Celeron Mobile 366MHz 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 366MHz, 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 366MHz 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 366MHz 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 366MHz 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 0.834 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 Solo U1400 has a 1920 KB bigger L2 cache than the Celeron Mobile 366MHz, 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 7 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Celeron Mobile 366MHz. However, the Celeron Mobile 366MHz was created with a 65 nm smaller manufacturing technology. Overall, by taking both into account, the Celeron Mobile 366MHz and the Core Solo U1400 would appear to produce roughly the same amount of heat, and consume about the same amount of power.

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameMendocinoYonah
MoBo SocketSocket 370Socket 479
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date17 May 199923 Apr 2006
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed0.366 GHzvs1.2 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus 66 MHzvs-
Max TDP13 Wvs6 W
Lithography-vs65 nm
Bit Width-vs-
Voltage Range1.6V KBvs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size-vs64 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 Size-vs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewThe Mendocino Celeron, launched 24 August 1998, was the first retail CPU to use on-die L2 cache. Whereas Covington had no secondary cache at all, Mendocino included 128 KB of L2 cache running at full clock rate. The first Mendocino-core Celeron was clocked at a then-modest 300 MHz but offered almost twice the performance of the old cacheless Covington Celeron at the same clock rate. To distinguish it from the older Covington 300 MHz, Intel called the Mendocino core Celeron 300A. Although the other Mendocino Celerons (the 333 MHz part, for example) did not have an A appended, some people call all Mendocino processors Celeron-A regardless of clock rate.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.