Celeron J1800 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9400 outperforms Celeron J1800 by a whopping 275% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2256 | 3051 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.34 | 3.41 |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Bay Trail-D (2013) |
| Release date | August 2008 (16 years ago) | 1 November 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $72 |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800 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 | 2.41 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 2.58 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 112 KB |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800 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 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| FDI | no data | - |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 792 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
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 | 1.35 | 0.36 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 10 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9400 has a 275% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron J1800, on the other hand, has a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 850% lower power consumption.
The Core 2 Quad Q9400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1800 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q9400 is a desktop processor while Celeron J1800 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J1800, 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.
