Celeron Dual-Core T3300 vs Core 2 Duo T9400

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 T3300 vs Core 2 Duo T9400 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 Dual-Core T3300 vs Core 2 Duo T9400: 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 T3300

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 6W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (300 vs 320).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core 2 Duo T9400 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core 2 Duo T9400

2008

Why buy it

✅+6.7% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,004 vs 1,005).
❌500% higher power demand at 6W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron Dual-Core T3300 better than Core 2 Duo T9400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Duo T9400 is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T3300 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is the better buy right now. Celeron Dual-Core T3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core 2 Duo T9400 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 Dual-Core T3300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 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 Dual-Core T3300 vs Core 2 Duo T9400 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3300

The Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $69.

Core 2 Duo T9400

The Core 2 Duo T9400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 July 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.53 GHz, with boost up to 2.53 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,004 points. Launch price was $316.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 and Core 2 Duo T9400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 versus 2.53 GHz on the Core 2 Duo T9400 — a 23.4% clock advantage for the Core 2 Duo T9400. Both are built on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture using a 45 nm process. In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 scores 1,005 against the Core 2 Duo T9400's 1,004 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3300. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 300 vs 320, a 6.5% lead for the Core 2 Duo T9400 that directly translates to higher frame rates.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T3300	Core 2 Duo T9400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.53 GHz+26%
Base Clock	—	2.53 GHz
L3 Cache	—	6 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	1 MB	6 MB+500%
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,005	1,004
Geekbench 6 Single	300	320+7%
Geekbench 6 Multi	520	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron Dual-Core T3300 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core 2 Duo T9400 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 versus DDR3-1066 on the Core 2 Duo T9400 — the Core 2 Duo T9400 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45,GS45 (Celeron Dual-Core T3300) and GM45,PM45 (Core 2 Duo T9400).

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T3300	Core 2 Duo T9400
Socket	P	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-800	DDR3-1066+33%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron Dual-Core T3300) vs VT-x (Core 2 Duo T9400). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T3300 targets Budget, Core 2 Duo T9400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T3300 rivals Pentium T4200; Core 2 Duo T9400 rivals Athlon Silver 3050U.