Celeron 807 vs Core 2 Quad Q9000
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9000 outperforms Celeron 807 by a whopping 296% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2464 | 3157 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Quad | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.08 | 1.39 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 July 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $348 | $70 |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807 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 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 15 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 1.5 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.05V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | PGA478 | FCBGA1023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| FMA | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 950 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| SDVO | no data | + |
| CRT | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.99 | 0.25 |
| Recency | 1 January 2009 | 1 July 2012 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 17 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9000 has a 296% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron 807, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 164.7% lower power consumption.
The Core 2 Quad Q9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 807 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron 807, 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.
