Core 2 Extreme X9000 vs Celeron N3350
Core 2 Extreme X9000
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 X9000 is positioned at rank 915 and the Celeron N3350 is on rank 1068, so the Core 2 Extreme X9000 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 X9000
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N3350
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core 2 Extreme X9000 | Celeron N3350 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($107) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Apollo Lake (2014−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core 2 Extreme X9000 | 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 X9000 and Celeron N3350
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.
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 X9000 and Celeron N3350 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X9000 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron N3350 — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme X9000 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The Core 2 Extreme X9000 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N3350 uses Apollo Lake (2014−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Extreme X9000 scores 1,108 against the Celeron N3350's 1,112 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron N3350. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Extreme X9000 vs 0 kB on the Celeron N3350.
| Feature | Core 2 Extreme X9000 | 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 | 6 MB L2 Cache | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB+500% | 1 MB |
| Process | 45 nm | 14 nm-69% |
| Architecture | Penryn (2008−2011) | Apollo Lake (2014−2016) |
| PassMark | 1,108 | 1,112 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 250 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 450 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 2 Extreme X9000 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N3350 uses FCBGA1296 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core 2 Extreme X9000 | Celeron N3350 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | FCBGA1296 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | — | LPDDR4-2400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 2 |
| ECC Support | — | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 6 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Core 2 Extreme X9000) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Celeron N3350). 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.
| Feature | Core 2 Extreme X9000 | Celeron N3350 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics 500 |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | — | 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 X9000 and Celeron N3350
