Celeron N3160 vs Core 2 Duo T9800

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 N3160 vs Core 2 Duo T9800 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 N3160 vs Core 2 Duo T9800: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 6W, a 2W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, while Core 2 Duo T9800 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core 2 Duo T9800

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,189 vs 1,195).
❌50% higher power demand at 6W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3160 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3160 better than Core 2 Duo T9800?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Duo T9800 is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3160 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3160 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3160 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.5% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N3160 vs Core 2 Duo T9800 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

Core 2 Duo T9800

The Core 2 Duo T9800 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 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.93 GHz, with boost up to 2.92 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,189 points. Launch price was $530.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N3160 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core 2 Duo T9800 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 versus 2.92 GHz on the Core 2 Duo T9800 — a 26.4% clock advantage for the Core 2 Duo T9800 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.93 GHz). The Celeron N3160 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core 2 Duo T9800 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3160 scores 1,195 against the Core 2 Duo T9800's 1,189 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron N3160. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N3160 vs 6 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Duo T9800.

Feature	Celeron N3160	Core 2 Duo T9800
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.24 GHz	2.92 GHz+30%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.93 GHz+83%
L3 Cache	0 kB	6 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	2 MB	6 MB+200%
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Braswell (2015−2016)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,195	1,189

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3160 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Duo T9800 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N3160	Core 2 Duo T9800
Socket	FCBGA1170	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	8	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron N3160) / not specified (Core 2 Duo T9800). The Celeron N3160 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Core 2 Duo T9800 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.