Celeron M 560 vs Core 2 Quad Q9300

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 M 560 vs Core 2 Quad Q9300 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 M 560 vs Core 2 Quad Q9300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron M 560

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $180 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $266 MSRP).
✅Delivers 208.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 23.3 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $266 MSRP).
✅Draws 1W instead of 95W, a 94W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,008 vs 2,011).

Core 2 Quad Q9300

2008

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.6 vs 23.3 PassMark/$ ($266 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
❌9400% higher power demand at 95W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Quad Q9300 better than Celeron M 560?

Yes. Core 2 Quad Q9300 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core 2 Quad Q9300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Quad Q9300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core 2 Quad Q9300 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core 2 Quad Q9300 comes in 209.3% more expensive on MSRP at $266 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M 560 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 208.8% better value on paper (23.3 vs 7.6 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core 2 Quad Q9300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron M 560 vs Core 2 Quad Q9300 Technical Specifications

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

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 Core 2 Quad Q9300 supports 59.8% 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 GB — 300% 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	DDR3-1066+60%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	16 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
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

At launch, the Celeron M 560 was priced at $86, while the Core 2 Quad Q9300 came in at $266. On launch pricing ($86 vs $266), Celeron M 560 was $180 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron M 560 delivers 23.3 pts/$ vs 7.6 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q9300 — making the Celeron M 560 the 102.2% better value option.

Feature	Celeron M 560	Core 2 Quad Q9300
MSRP	$86-68%	$266
Performance per Dollar	23.3+207%	7.6
Release Date	2008	2008

Search Celeron M 560 on Amazon

Search Core 2 Quad Q9300 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.