
Celeron Dual-Core T3000

Core 2 Quad Q9100
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Core 2 Quad Q9100 Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
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 Dual-Core T3000 vs Core 2 Quad Q9100 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Core 2 Quad Q9100: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
2009Why buy it
- ✅Draws 1W instead of 12W, a 11W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (1,797 vs 1,806).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.5 vs 129.0 PassMark/$ ($80 MSRP vs $14 MSRP).
Core 2 Quad Q9100
2008Why buy it
- ✅Costs $66 less on MSRP ($14 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 474.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.0 vs 22.5 PassMark/$ ($14 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌1100% higher power demand at 12W vs 1W.
Quick Answers
So, is Core 2 Quad Q9100 better than Celeron Dual-Core T3000?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Core 2 Quad Q9100 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,797 points. Launch price was $69.

Core 2 Quad Q9100
The Core 2 Quad Q9100 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.26 GHz, with boost up to 2.26 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,806 points. Launch price was $249.
Processing Power
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Quad Q9100 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q9100 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 versus 2.26 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9100 — a 22.7% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q9100. The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q9100 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 scores 1,797 against the Core 2 Quad Q9100's 1,806 — a 0.5% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q9100.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Core 2 Quad Q9100 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 1.8 GHz | 2.26 GHz+26% |
| Base Clock | — | 2.26 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 6 MB (total)+500% |
| Process | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Penryn-1M (2009) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| PassMark | 1,797 | 1,806 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core 2 Quad Q9100 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 versus DDR3-1066 on the Core 2 Quad Q9100 — the Core 2 Quad Q9100 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) vs 0 (Core 2 Quad Q9100) — the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Core 2 Quad Q9100 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | P | PGA478 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-800 | DDR3-1066+33% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: false (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) vs VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q9100). Primary use case: Core 2 Quad Q9100 targets Mobile.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Core 2 Quad Q9100 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | false | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Mobile |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 was priced at $80, while the Core 2 Quad Q9100 came in at $14. On launch pricing ($80 vs $14), Core 2 Quad Q9100 was $66 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 delivers 22.5 pts/$ vs 129.0 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q9100 — making the Core 2 Quad Q9100 the 140.7% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Core 2 Quad Q9100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $80 | $14-83% |
| Performance per Dollar | 22.5 | 129.0+473% |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2008 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














