CPU
GPU
Celeron M 560
Core 2 Quad Q9300
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 M 560 is positioned at rank 819 and the Core 2 Quad Q9300 is on rank 1039, so the Celeron M 560 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron M 560
Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Quad Q9300
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron M 560 | Core 2 Quad Q9300 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($27) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Yorkfield (2007−2009) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron M 560 | Core 2 Quad Q9300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+170%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($27) |
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 M 560 and Core 2 Quad Q9300
Celeron M 560
The Celeron M 560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.13 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,008 points. Launch price was $69.
Core 2 Quad Q9300
The Core 2 Quad Q9300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Yorkfield (2007−2009) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,011 points. Launch price was $249.
Processing Power
The Celeron M 560 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core 2 Quad Q9300 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q9300 has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.13 GHz on the Celeron M 560 versus 2.5 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9300 — a 16% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q9300. The Celeron M 560 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q9300 uses Yorkfield (2007−2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M 560 scores 2,008 against the Core 2 Quad Q9300's 2,011 — a 0.1% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q9300.
| Feature | Celeron M 560 | Core 2 Quad Q9300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 4 / 4+300% |
| Boost Clock | 2.13 GHz | 2.5 GHz+17% |
| Base Clock | — | 2.5 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 6 MB (total)+500% |
| Process | 65 nm | 45 nm-31% |
| Architecture | Merom (2006−2008) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| PassMark | 2,008 | 2,011 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron M 560 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core 2 Quad Q9300 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 667 on the Celeron M 560 versus DDR3-1066 on the Core 2 Quad Q9300 — the Celeron M 560 supports 198.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core 2 Quad Q9300 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron M 560) vs 16 (Core 2 Quad Q9300) — the Core 2 Quad Q9300 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GL960,GM965 (Celeron M 560) and P35,P45,X38,X48 (Core 2 Quad Q9300).
| Feature | Celeron M 560 | Core 2 Quad Q9300 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | LGA775 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | 667+22133% | DDR3-1066 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 | 16 GB+419430300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: false (Celeron M 560) / not specified (Core 2 Quad Q9300). Direct competitor: Celeron M 560 rivals Mobile Sempron 3600+.
| Feature | Celeron M 560 | Core 2 Quad Q9300 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | false | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron M 560 launched at $86 MSRP, while the Core 2 Quad Q9300 debuted at $266. At current prices ($10 vs $27), the Celeron M 560 is $17 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron M 560 delivers 200.8 pts/$ vs 74.5 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q9300 — making the Celeron M 560 the 91.8% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron M 560 | Core 2 Quad Q9300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $86-68% | $266 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-63% | $27 |
| Performance per Dollar | 200.8+170% | 74.5 |
| Release Date | 2008 | 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 M 560 and Core 2 Quad Q9300
