Celeron G1620 vs Core 2 Duo SU9400

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 G1620 vs Core 2 Duo SU9400 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 G1620 vs Core 2 Duo SU9400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G1620

2012

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1), while Core 2 Duo SU9400 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Intel Stock), unlike Core 2 Duo SU9400.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,586 vs 1,596).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 3 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $52 MSRP, while Core 2 Duo SU9400 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1733.3% higher power demand at 55W vs 3W.

Core 2 Duo SU9400

2008

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 3W instead of 55W, a 52W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1620 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron G1620.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1620 better than Core 2 Duo SU9400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron G1620 is ahead with a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Duo SU9400 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark. Core 2 Duo SU9400 also has the bigger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Duo SU9400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Celeron G1620 is the better buy right now. Celeron G1620 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $52 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core 2 Duo SU9400 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.6% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (30.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 G1620 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron G1620 vs Core 2 Duo SU9400 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G1620

The Celeron G1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 December 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,586 points. Launch price was $208.

Core 2 Duo SU9400

The Core 2 Duo SU9400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,596 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron G1620 and Core 2 Duo SU9400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the Celeron G1620 versus 1.4 GHz on the Core 2 Duo SU9400 — a 63.4% clock advantage for the Celeron G1620 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 1.4 GHz). The Celeron G1620 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core 2 Duo SU9400 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1620 scores 1,586 against the Core 2 Duo SU9400's 1,596 — a 0.6% lead for the Core 2 Duo SU9400. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620 vs 3 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Duo SU9400.

Feature	Celeron G1620	Core 2 Duo SU9400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+93%	1.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz+93%	1.4 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	3 MB L2 Cache+50%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	3 MB+1100%
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,586	1,596
Geekbench 6 Single	441	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	760	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1620 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Duo SU9400 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1620	Core 2 Duo SU9400
Socket	LGA1155	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, EPT (Celeron G1620) / not specified (Core 2 Duo SU9400). The Celeron G1620 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1)), while the Core 2 Duo SU9400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620 rivals Pentium G2030.