Celeron 1005M vs Core 2 Extreme X9000

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Celeron 1005M vs Core 2 Extreme X9000 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Celeron 1005M vs Core 2 Extreme X9000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron 1005M

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Core 2 Extreme X9000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 6 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core 2 Extreme X9000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌8433.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 6W.

Core 2 Extreme X9000

2008

Why buy it

✅+200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 6W instead of 512W, a 506W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,108 vs 1,116).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1005M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1005M better than Core 2 Extreme X9000?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Extreme X9000 is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1005M pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark. Core 2 Extreme X9000 also has the bigger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1005M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron 1005M is the better buy right now. Celeron 1005M comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core 2 Extreme X9000 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (13.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron 1005M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 1005M vs Core 2 Extreme X9000 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron 1005M

The Celeron 1005M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,116 points. Launch price was $86.

Core 2 Extreme X9000

The Core 2 Extreme X9000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 January 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,108 points. Launch price was $851.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1005M and Core 2 Extreme X9000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 1005M versus 2.8 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X9000 — a 38.3% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme X9000 (base: 1.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Celeron 1005M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core 2 Extreme X9000 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1005M scores 1,116 against the Core 2 Extreme X9000's 1,108 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron 1005M. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 1005M vs 6 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Extreme X9000.

Feature	Celeron 1005M	Core 2 Extreme X9000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz	2.8 GHz+47%
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	2.8 GHz+47%
L3 Cache	2 MB	6 MB L2 Cache+200%
L2 Cache	512 kB	6 MB+1100%
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,116	1,108
Cinebench R23 Multi	656	—
Geekbench 6 Single	350	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	607	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1005M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Extreme X9000 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 1005M	Core 2 Extreme X9000
Socket	PGA988	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 1005M) / not specified (Core 2 Extreme X9000). The Celeron 1005M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Core 2 Extreme X9000 requires a dedicated GPU.