Celeron J3160 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9400
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.34
+67.5%
Celeron J3160
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
0.80

Core 2 Quad Q9400 outperforms Celeron J3160 by an impressive 68% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22412601
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.3312.62
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Airmont (2016)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)15 January 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.66 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.67 GHz2.24 GHz
Bus typeno dataIDI
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache6 MB (shared)2 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Die size2x 81 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors456 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketLGA775FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring++
Smart Responseno data-
Demand Based Switching-no data
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
FSB parity-no data
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160 are enumerated here.

VT-d+-
VT-x++
VT-ino data-
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3L-1600
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data700 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data4
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data5
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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.

Core 2 Quad Q9400 1.34
+67.5%
Celeron J3160 0.80

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9400 2133
+68.1%
Celeron J3160 1269

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9400 334
+94.2%
Celeron J3160 172

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9400 924
+83%
Celeron J3160 505

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.34 0.80
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 6 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9400 has a 67.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron J3160, on the other hand, has a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1483.3% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Quad Q9400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J3160 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J3160, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400
Core 2 Quad Q9400
Intel Celeron J3160
Celeron J3160

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 1552 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q9400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 55 votes

Rate Celeron J3160 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9400 or Celeron J3160, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.