Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Core 2 Duo U2400 1.06GHz Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 1537% 3298%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 2104% 4475%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 1487% 3193%
Watch Dogs Legion 2104% 4475%
Godfall 3062% 6462%
FIFA 21 1431% 3078%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 1755% 3749%
Grand Theft Auto VI 2591% 5485%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 2445% 5183%
Genshin Impact 1140% 2473%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Core 2 Duo U2400 1.06GHz 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 Core 2 Duo was released over a year more recently than the Core Solo U1400, and so the Core 2 Duo 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 Duo has 1 more core than the Core Solo U1400. However, while the Core 2 Duo will probably perform better than the Core Solo U1400, both CPUs are likely to struggle with the latest games, and will almost certainly bottleneck high-end graphics cards. Both CPUs also have quite low clock frequencies, which means recent games will have to be played at low settings, assuming you own an equivalently powerful GPU.

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 Duo and the Core Solo U1400 are from the same family of CPUs, and thus their clock speeds are directly comparable. With this in mind, it is safe to say that with a 0.14 GHz faster base clock rate, the Core Solo U1400 manages to provide marginally better performance than the Core 2 Duo.

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 Duo and the Core Solo U1400 have the same L2 cache size, and neither CPU appears to have an L3 cache. They even have the same L1 cache size, so are identical in terms of cache size.

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 3 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Core 2 Duo (though they were created with the same size 65 nm 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 CodenameYonahYonah
MoBo SocketSocket 479Socket 479
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date05 Feb 200923 Apr 2006
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores2vs1
Clock Speed1.06 GHzvs1.2 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus 533 MHzvs-
Max TDP9 Wvs6 W
Lithography65 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width32 Bitvs-
Voltage Range0.8-1.1V KBvs-
Virtualization Technologyyesvsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size64 KBvs64 KB
L2 Cache Size2048 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 Size35mm x 35mmvs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewCore 2 is a brand encompassing a range of Intel's consumer 64-bit x86-64 single-, dual-, and quad-core microprocessors based on the Core microarchitecture. The single- and dual-core models are single-die, whereas the quad-core models comprise two dies, each containing two cores, packaged in a multi-chip module. The introduction of Core 2 relegated the Pentium brand to the mid-range market, and reunified laptop and desktop CPU lines, which previously had been divided into the Pentium 4, Pentium D, and Pentium M brands.
The Core microarchitecture returned to lower clock rates and improved the usage of both available clock cycles and power when compared with the preceding NetBurst microarchitecture of the Pentium 4/D-branded CPUs. The Core microarchitecture provides more efficient decoding stages, execution units, caches, and buses, reducing the power consumption of Core 2-branded CPUs while increasing their processing capacity. Intel's CPUs have varied widely in power consumption according to clock rate, architecture, and semiconductor process, shown in the CPU power dissipation tables.
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.