Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs M P4500
Aggregate performance score
Celeron M P4500 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1400 by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M P4500 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2795 | 2977 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 1.69 | 1.14 |
| Architecture codename | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Merom-2M (2008) |
| Release date | 1 April 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M P4500 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 1.73 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2500 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 81+114 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 382+177 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M P4500 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 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.
| Socket | PGA988 | P |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 0.42 |
| Recency | 1 April 2010 | 1 May 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
Celeron M P4500 has a 47.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Celeron M P4500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M P4500 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
