Celeron N3350 vs Core 2 Duo T9400

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo T9400
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.64
Celeron N3350
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
0.70
+9.4%

Celeron N3350 outperforms Core 2 Duo T9400 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27582705
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core 2 DuoIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.7311.04
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Apollo Lake (2014−2016)
Release date15 July 2008 (16 years ago)30 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$316$24

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.53 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.53 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHzno data
Multiplierno data11
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache6 MB1 MB
L3 cache6 MB L2 Cache0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C105 °C
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1.05V-1.162Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350 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 configurationno data1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketBGA479,BGA956,PBGA479,PGA478FCBGA1296
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States-+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
Demand Based Switching-no data
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
FSB parity-no data
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++
VT-ino data-
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics 500
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data650 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data6
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data8
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno data+

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.

Core 2 Duo T9400 0.64
Celeron N3350 0.70
+9.4%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Core 2 Duo T9400 1011
Celeron N3350 1107
+9.5%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Core 2 Duo T9400 322
+27.8%
Celeron N3350 252

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Core 2 Duo T9400 507
+21.3%
Celeron N3350 418

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Core 2 Duo T9400 2818
+89.1%
Celeron N3350 1490

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.

Core 2 Duo T9400 5268
+98.5%
Celeron N3350 2654

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Core 2 Duo T9400 2304
+39.3%
Celeron N3350 1655

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.

Core 2 Duo T9400 31
+46.8%
Celeron N3350 45.5

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.64 0.70
Recency 15 July 2008 30 August 2016
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 6 Watt

Celeron N3350 has a 9.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron N3350, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Duo T9400
Core 2 Duo T9400
Intel Celeron N3350
Celeron N3350

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 119 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo T9400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 956 votes

Rate Celeron N3350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo T9400 or Celeron N3350, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.