Solo T1350 vs Celeron M 370
Aggregate performance score
Celeron M 370 outperforms Core Solo T1350 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 370 and Core Solo T1350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3300 | 3344 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | Core Solo |
| Power efficiency | 0.68 | 0.42 |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Yonah (2005−2006) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | January 2006 (18 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 370 and Core Solo T1350 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 1.86 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 1.86 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 90 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 151 million |
| 64 bit support | - | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.004V-1.292V | 0.95V-1.262V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 370 and Core Solo T1350 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | H-PBGA478,H-PBGA479,PPGA478 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 31 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 370 and Core Solo T1350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | - | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| PAE | 32 Bit | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | - | - |
Security technologies
Celeron M 370 and Core Solo T1350 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 370 and Core Solo T1350 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 370 and Core Solo T1350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.15 | 0.12 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 31 Watt |
Celeron M 370 has a 25% higher aggregate performance score, and 47.6% lower power consumption.
Solo T1350, on the other hand, has a 38.5% more advanced lithography process.
The Celeron M 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core Solo T1350 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 370 and Core Solo T1350, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
