Core 2 Duo SU9400 vs Celeron G1620
Core 2 Duo SU9400
Celeron G1620
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Core 2 Duo SU9400 is positioned at rank 409 and the Celeron G1620 is on rank 590, so the Core 2 Duo SU9400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Duo SU9400
Performance Per Dollar Celeron G1620
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core 2 Duo SU9400 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core 2 Duo SU9400 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core 2 Duo SU9400 and Celeron G1620
Core 2 Duo SU9400
The Core 2 Duo SU9400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,596 points. Launch price was $262.
Celeron G1620
The Celeron G1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 December 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,586 points. Launch price was $208.
Processing Power
Both the Core 2 Duo SU9400 and Celeron G1620 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the Core 2 Duo SU9400 versus 2.7 GHz on the Celeron G1620 — a 63.4% clock advantage for the Celeron G1620 (base: 1.4 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Core 2 Duo SU9400 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron G1620 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo SU9400 scores 1,596 against the Celeron G1620's 1,586 — a 0.6% lead for the Core 2 Duo SU9400. L3 cache: 3 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Duo SU9400 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620.
| Feature | Core 2 Duo SU9400 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.4 GHz | 2.7 GHz+93% |
| Base Clock | 1.4 GHz | 2.7 GHz+93% |
| L3 Cache | 3 MB L2 Cache+50% | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+1100% | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 22 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Penryn (2008−2011) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,596 | 1,586 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 441 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 760 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 2 Duo SU9400 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron G1620 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core 2 Duo SU9400 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA956 | LGA1155 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 32 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 2 |
| ECC Support | — | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Core 2 Duo SU9400) / VT-x, EPT (Celeron G1620). The Celeron G1620 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1)), while the Core 2 Duo SU9400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620 rivals Pentium G2030.
| Feature | Core 2 Duo SU9400 | Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1) |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x, EPT |
| Target Use | — | Desktop |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core 2 Duo SU9400 and Celeron G1620
