CPU
GPU
Core 2 Extreme X7900
Celeron N3350
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 Extreme X7900 is positioned at rank 1162 and the Celeron N3350 is on rank 1068, so the Celeron N3350 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 Extreme X7900
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N3350
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron N3350 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($107) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Apollo Lake (2014−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron N3350 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($107) |
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 Extreme X7900 and Celeron N3350
Core 2 Extreme X7900
The Core 2 Extreme X7900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,115 points. Launch price was $851.
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.
Processing Power
Both the Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Celeron N3350 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron N3350 — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme X7900 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron N3350 uses Apollo Lake (2014−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Extreme X7900 scores 1,115 against the Celeron N3350's 1,112 — a 0.3% lead for the Core 2 Extreme X7900. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron N3350 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.8 GHz+17% | 2.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.8 GHz+155% | 1.1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
| Process | 65 nm | 14 nm-78% |
| Architecture | Merom (2006−2008) | Apollo Lake (2014−2016) |
| PassMark | 1,115 | 1,112 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 250 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 450 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N3350 uses FCBGA1296 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 versus LPDDR4-2400 on the Celeron N3350 — the Celeron N3350 supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N3350 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Core 2 Extreme X7900) vs 6 (Celeron N3350) — the Celeron N3350 offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron N3350 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | FCBGA1296 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | LPDDR4-2400+100% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 6 |
Advanced Features
Only the Core 2 Extreme X7900 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x (Core 2 Extreme X7900) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Celeron N3350). The Celeron N3350 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 500), while the Core 2 Extreme X7900 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Extreme X7900 targets Mobile, Celeron N3350 targets Entry Level Laptop/NUC. Direct competitor: Celeron N3350 rivals AMD A4-9120.
| Feature | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron N3350 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics 500 |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Mobile | Entry Level Laptop/NUC |
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 Extreme X7900 and Celeron N3350
