Celeron N5095 vs Core 2 Quad Q9500
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N5095 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9500 by an impressive 84% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2225 | 1744 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 39 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Jasper Lake |
| Power efficiency | 1.39 | 16.21 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Jasper Lake (2021) |
| Release date | no data | 11 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2.9 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L2 cache | no data | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 10 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | FCBGA1338 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| vPro | no data | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 750 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 16 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095.
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 14 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | no 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.
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 | 1.40 | 2.57 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron N5095 has a 83.6% higher aggregate performance score, a 350% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.
The Celeron N5095 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9500 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Celeron N5095, 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.
