Celeron 2.0 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron 2.0 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2237 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.33 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | August 2008 (16 years ago) | September 2002 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 | 2.66 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9400 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) | 95 Watt | 73 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 Quad Q9400 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 Quad Q9400 and Celeron 2.0 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 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) | 95 Watt | 73 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 30.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron 2.0. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 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.
