Celeron M 900 vs Core 2 Duo T6400

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 900 vs Core 2 Duo T6400 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 900 vs Core 2 Duo T6400: 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 900

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 2W, a 1W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,101 vs 2,115).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core 2 Duo T6400 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core 2 Duo T6400

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌100% higher power demand at 2W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron M 900 better than Core 2 Duo T6400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron M 900 is ahead with a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Duo T6400 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Duo T6400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron M 900 is the better buy right now. Celeron M 900 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core 2 Duo T6400 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.7% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (24.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core 2 Duo T6400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 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 900 vs Core 2 Duo T6400 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron M 900

The Celeron M 900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,101 points. Launch price was $70.

Core 2 Duo T6400

The Core 2 Duo T6400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 2,115 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M 900 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core 2 Duo T6400 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Core 2 Duo T6400 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron M 900 versus 2 GHz on the Core 2 Duo T6400 — a 9.5% clock advantage for the Celeron M 900. Both are built on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture using a 45 nm process. In PassMark, the Celeron M 900 scores 2,101 against the Core 2 Duo T6400's 2,115 — a 0.7% lead for the Core 2 Duo T6400.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Core 2 Duo T6400
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+10%	2 GHz
Base Clock	—	2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	2,101	2,115
Geekbench 6 Single	—	650
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,300