Celeron J4005 vs Core 2 Quad Q9000
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9000 outperforms Celeron J4005 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2458 | 2468 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.07 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Quad | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.09 | 9.21 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Goldmont Plus (2017) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) | 11 December 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $348 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 4 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 93 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.05V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005 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 | FCBGA1090 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 600 |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 700 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 6 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.03 | 1.01 |
| Recency | 1 January 2009 | 11 December 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 10 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9000 has a 2% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron J4005, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 350% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005.
Be aware that Core 2 Quad Q9000 is a notebook processor while Celeron J4005 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron J4005, 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.
