Celeron N4500 vs Core 2 Quad Q9100

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 N4500 vs Core 2 Quad Q9100 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 N4500 vs Core 2 Quad Q9100: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N4500

2021

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 12W, a 6W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Core 2 Quad Q9100

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,806 vs 1,817).
❌Launch MSRP is still $14 MSRP, while Celeron N4500 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌100% higher power demand at 12W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N4500 better than Core 2 Quad Q9100?

Yes. Celeron N4500 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% 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, Celeron N4500 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.0% 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, Celeron N4500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N4500 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron N4500 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $14 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Quad Q9100 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (129.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Celeron N4500 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N4500 vs Core 2 Quad Q9100 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N4500

The Celeron N4500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Jasper Lake (2021) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.5 MB (total). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1338. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,817 points. Launch price was $69.

Core 2 Quad Q9100

The Core 2 Quad Q9100 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.26 GHz, with boost up to 2.26 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,806 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N4500 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Quad Q9100 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q9100 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Celeron N4500 versus 2.26 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9100 — a 21.3% clock advantage for the Celeron N4500 (base: 1.1 GHz vs 2.26 GHz). The Celeron N4500 uses the Jasper Lake (2021) architecture (10 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q9100 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N4500 scores 1,817 against the Core 2 Quad Q9100's 1,806 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron N4500. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Celeron N4500 vs 0 kB on the Core 2 Quad Q9100.

Feature	Celeron N4500	Core 2 Quad Q9100
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+24%	2.26 GHz
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	2.26 GHz+105%
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	1.5 MB (total)	6 MB (total)+300%
Process	10 nm-78%	45 nm
Architecture	Jasper Lake (2021)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,817	1,806

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N4500 uses the BGA1338 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Core 2 Quad Q9100 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.