Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Solo SL3400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Solo SL3400

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 3 MB vs 0.5 MB 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 12x more l2 cache per core
Higher clock speed 1.86 GHz vs 1.5 GHz Around 25% higher clock speed
Front view of Intel Celeron 1007U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 1007U

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once

Features Key features of the Core2 Solo SL3400  vs Celeron 1007U 

clock speed

Celeron 1007U
1.5 GHz

L2 cache

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Solo SL3400  vs
Celeron 1007U 
Clock speed 1.86 GHz 1.5 GHz
Cores Single core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 17W 17W
Annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year 4.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 14.89 $/year 14.89 $/year
Typical power consumption 13.81W 13.81W

details

Core2 Solo SL3400  vs
Celeron 1007U 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
L2 cache 3 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 350 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,000 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Core2 Solo SL3400
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 1007U
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus