Celeron 2.0 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9650
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and Celeron 2.0 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | November 2007 (17 years ago) | September 2002 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and Celeron 2.0 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 64 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 820 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and Celeron 2.0 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 73 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and Celeron 2.0. 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 |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and Celeron 2.0 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 QX9650 and Celeron 2.0 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and Celeron 2.0. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 73 Watt |
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 188.9% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 2.0, on the other hand, has 78.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and Celeron 2.0. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and Celeron 2.0, 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.
