Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron N2805 1.46GHz Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 1673% 3298%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 2286% 4475%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 1618% 3193%
FIFA 21 1558% 3078%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 1908% 3749%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 2656% 5183%
Watch Dogs Legion 2286% 4475%
Horizon: Zero Dawn 1908% 3749%
Grand Theft Auto VI 2813% 5485%
Genshin Impact 1242% 2473%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Celeron N2805 1.46GHz 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 N2805 1.46GHz was released over three years more recently than the Core Solo U1400, and so the Celeron N2805 1.46GHz 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 N2805 1.46GHz has 1 more core than the Core Solo U1400. However, while the Celeron N2805 1.46GHz 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 Celeron N2805 1.46GHz 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 N2805 1.46GHz has a 0.267 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 1024 KB bigger L2 cache than the Celeron N2805 1.46GHz, 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 Celeron N2805 1.46GHz has a 2 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Core Solo U1400, and was created with a 43 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Celeron N2805 1.46GHz 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 CodenameBay Trail-MYonah
MoBo SocketBGA 1170Socket 479
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date11 Sep 201323 Apr 2006
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores2vs1
CPU Threads2vs-
Clock Speed1.467 GHzvs1.2 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
Max TDP4 Wvs6 W
Lithography22 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width64 Bitvs-
Max Temperature100°Cvs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size102 KBvs64 KB
L2 Cache Size1024 KBvs2048 KB
L3 Cache Size-vs-
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphicsnono

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 ReviewA power optimized processor for SoC notebooks. Very low power consumption, as well as very limited performance. Only very modest games will run optimally.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.