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 Quad Q9000 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 Quad Q9000: 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

✅Costs $296 less on MSRP ($52 MSRP vs $348 MSRP).
✅Delivers 564.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.5 vs 4.6 PassMark/$ ($52 MSRP vs $348 MSRP).
✅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 Quad Q9000 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Intel Stock), unlike Core 2 Quad Q9000.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,586 vs 1,597).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 6 MB).
❌816.7% higher power demand at 55W vs 6W.

Core 2 Quad Q9000

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 6W instead of 55W, a 49W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.6 vs 30.5 PassMark/$ ($348 MSRP vs $52 MSRP).
❌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 Quad Q9000?

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 Quad Q9000 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark. Core 2 Quad Q9000 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, Core 2 Quad Q9000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (6 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 $296 cheaper on MSRP at $52 MSRP versus $348 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core 2 Quad Q9000 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.7% better PassMark. It is also 564.6% better value on MSRP (30.5 vs 4.6 PassMark/$), 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 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron G1620 vs Core 2 Quad Q9000 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 Quad Q9000

The Core 2 Quad Q9000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,597 points. Launch price was $348.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G1620 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Quad Q9000 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q9000 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the Celeron G1620 versus 2 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9000 — a 29.8% clock advantage for the Celeron G1620 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Celeron G1620 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q9000 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1620 scores 1,586 against the Core 2 Quad Q9000's 1,597 — a 0.7% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q9000. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620 vs 6 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Quad Q9000.

Feature	Celeron G1620	Core 2 Quad Q9000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+35%	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz+35%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	6 MB L2 Cache+200%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	6 MB+2300%
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,586	1,597
Geekbench 6 Single	441	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	760	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1620 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Quad Q9000 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1620	Core 2 Quad Q9000
Socket	LGA1155	PGA478
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 Quad Q9000). The Celeron G1620 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1)), while the Core 2 Quad Q9000 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620 rivals Pentium G2030.

Feature	Celeron G1620	Core 2 Quad Q9000
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1)	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, EPT	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron G1620 was priced at $52, while the Core 2 Quad Q9000 came in at $348. On launch pricing ($52 vs $348), Celeron G1620 was $296 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron G1620 delivers 30.5 pts/$ vs 4.6 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q9000 — making the Celeron G1620 the 147.7% better value option.

Feature	Celeron G1620	Core 2 Quad Q9000
MSRP	$52-85%	$348
Performance per Dollar	30.5+563%	4.6
Release Date	2012	2009

Search Celeron G1620 on Amazon

Search Core 2 Quad Q9000 on Amazon

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.