Celeron G1620 vs Core 2 Quad Q9000
Celeron G1620
Core 2 Quad Q9000
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 G1620 is positioned at rank 590 and the Core 2 Quad Q9000 is on rank 1216, so the Celeron G1620 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron G1620
Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Quad Q9000
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron G1620 | Core 2 Quad Q9000 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron G1620 | Core 2 Quad Q9000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+169%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
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 G1620 and Core 2 Quad Q9000
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 | ✅ | — |
| 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
The Celeron G1620 launched at $52 MSRP, while the Core 2 Quad Q9000 debuted at $348. At current prices ($40 vs $15), the Core 2 Quad Q9000 is $25 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron G1620 delivers 39.6 pts/$ vs 106.5 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q9000 — making the Core 2 Quad Q9000 the 91.5% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron G1620 | Core 2 Quad Q9000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $52-85% | $348 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40 | $15-63% |
| Performance per Dollar | 39.6 | 106.5+169% |
| Release Date | 2012 | 2009 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron G1620 and Core 2 Quad Q9000
