CPU
GPU
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Core 2 Quad Q9100
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is positioned at rank 824 and the Core 2 Quad Q9100 is on rank 69, so the Core 2 Quad Q9100 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Quad Q9100
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Core 2 Quad Q9100 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($14) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn-1M (2009) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Core 2 Quad Q9100 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($14) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Core 2 Quad Q9100
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. Both support up to DDR3-800 memory speed. 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 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| 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
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 launched at $80 MSRP, while the Core 2 Quad Q9100 debuted at $14. At current prices ($15 vs $14), the Core 2 Quad Q9100 is $1 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 delivers 119.8 pts/$ vs 129.0 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q9100 — making the Core 2 Quad Q9100 the 7.4% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Core 2 Quad Q9100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $80 | $14-83% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $14-7% |
| Performance per Dollar | 119.8 | 129.0+8% |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2008 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Core 2 Quad Q9100
