Celeron G3900 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400
Aggregate performance score
Celeron G3900 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2143 | 2129 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.51 | 0.18 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| Release date | August 2008 (15 years ago) | 1 September 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $42 |
| Current price | $73 | $37 (0.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 2 Quad Q9400 has 1850% better value for money than Celeron G3900.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900 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 | 2.66 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 150 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | 65 °C |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900 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 | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 51 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| TSX | no data | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| SIPP | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | no data | - |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 34.1 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 510 |
| Max video memory | no data | 64 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 950 MHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DVI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2304@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over VGA | no data | N/A |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900 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 Q9400 and Celeron G3900.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| 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.
Celeron G3900 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Celeron G3900 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by 2% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Celeron G3900 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by 72% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Celeron G3900 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by 6% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
3DMark Fire Strike Physics
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Core 2 Quad Q9400 outperforms Celeron G3900 by 41% in 3DMark Fire Strike Physics.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.37 | 1.40 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 51 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron G3900, 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.
