Trace: try redirect_from

Trace: select _id, title from ss_cpu where redirect_to=526

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking2321not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesCore 2 ExtremeIntel Celeron Dual-Core
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Penryn-1M (2009)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)1 May 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.53 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.53 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHz800 MHz
L1 cache64 KB64 KB
L2 cache12 MB1 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size2x 107 mm2107 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
Number of transistorsno data410 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage range1.05V-1.175Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 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 configuration2no data
SocketPGA478P (478)
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
AMT+no data
FSB parity-no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data

Security technologies

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 are enumerated here.

VT-x+no 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.


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 Extreme QX9300 1805
+163%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 687

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 Extreme QX9300 3114
+73.3%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1797

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 Extreme QX9300 10882
+227%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 3329

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 Extreme QX9300 3780
+137%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1593

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 Extreme QX9300 15.74
+190%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 45.65

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 35 Watt

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000, on the other hand, has 28.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000, 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 Extreme QX9300
Core 2 Extreme QX9300
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Celeron Dual-Core T3000

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.


4.1 91 vote

Rate Core 2 Extreme QX9300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 60 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Extreme QX9300 or Celeron Dual-Core T3000, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.