Celeron N3350 vs Core 2 Extreme X9000

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 N3350 vs Core 2 Extreme X9000 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 N3350 vs Core 2 Extreme X9000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3350

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 500, while Core 2 Extreme X9000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $107 MSRP, while Core 2 Extreme X9000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core 2 Extreme X9000

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,108 vs 1,112).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3350 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3350 better than Core 2 Extreme X9000?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Extreme X9000 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 N3350 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3350 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N3350 is the better buy right now. Celeron N3350 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $107 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core 2 Extreme X9000 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (10.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron N3350 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N3350 vs Core 2 Extreme X9000 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3350

The Celeron N3350 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,112 points. Launch price was $24.

Core 2 Extreme X9000

The Core 2 Extreme X9000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 January 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,108 points. Launch price was $851.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N3350 and Core 2 Extreme X9000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron N3350 versus 2.8 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X9000 — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme X9000 (base: 1.1 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Celeron N3350 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core 2 Extreme X9000 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3350 scores 1,112 against the Core 2 Extreme X9000's 1,108 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron N3350. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N3350 vs 6 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Extreme X9000.

Feature	Celeron N3350	Core 2 Extreme X9000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.8 GHz+17%
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	2.8 GHz+155%
L3 Cache	0 kB	6 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	1 MB	6 MB+500%
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,112	1,108
Geekbench 6 Single	250	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	450	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3350 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Extreme X9000 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N3350	Core 2 Extreme X9000
Socket	FCBGA1296	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	6	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Celeron N3350) / not specified (Core 2 Extreme X9000). The Celeron N3350 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 500), while the Core 2 Extreme X9000 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N3350 targets Entry Level Laptop/NUC. Direct competitor: Celeron N3350 rivals AMD A4-9120.