Celeron J4025 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9400
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.34
+44.1%
Celeron J4025
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.93

Core 2 Quad Q9400 outperforms Celeron J4025 by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22412509
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.57
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.338.80
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Gemini Lake Refresh (2019)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)4 November 2019 (5 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 J4025 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.66 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.67 GHz2.9 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cache64K (per core)56 KB (per core)
L2 cache6 MB (shared)4 MB (shared)
L3 cache0 KB4 MB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Die size2x 81 mm293 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °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 J4025 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
SocketLGA775FCBGA1090
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2
AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data-
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Smart Responseno data-
Demand Based Switching-no data
GPIOno data+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics 600
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequencyno data700 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025 integrated GPUs.

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

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution supportno data+
Max resolution over HDMI 1.4no data4096x2160@30Hz
Max resolution over eDPno data4096x2160@60Hz
Max resolution over DisplayPortno data4096x2160@60Hz

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data12
OpenGLno data4.4

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data6
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data8
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
+44.1%
Celeron J4025 0.93

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
+44.8%
Celeron J4025 1473

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
+0.6%
Celeron J4025 332

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
+71.1%
Celeron J4025 540

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.34 0.93
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 10 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9400 has a 44.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron J4025, on the other hand, has a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 850% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Quad Q9400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J4025 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron J4025, 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 J4025
Celeron J4025

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
3.2 125 votes

Rate Celeron J4025 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 J4025, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.