Core 2 Quad Q9000 vs Celeron G1620

Core 2 Quad Q9000

4 Cores4 Thrd6 WWMax: 2 GHz2009

Celeron G1620

2 Cores2 Thrd55 WWMax: 2.7 GHz2012

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core 2 Quad Q9000

4 / 4

1,597

+0.7%

1,586

0.0%

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 Quad Q9000 is positioned at rank 1216 and the Celeron G1620 is on rank 590, so the Celeron G1620 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Quad Q9000

#1204

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

6392%

#1205

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

6298%

#1206

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

5782%

#1207

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

5756%

#1208

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

5703%

#1210

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

5508%

#1211

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

5281%

#1212

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

5272%

#1213

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

5131%

#1216

Core 2 Quad Q9000

MSRP: $348|Avg: $15

100%

#1217

Core i5-2537M

MSRP: $250|Avg: N/A

100%

#1218

Core i7-720QM

MSRP: $364|Avg: N/A

99%

#1219

Pentium U5400

MSRP: $289|Avg: $214

97%

#1220

Pentium T2330

MSRP: $150|Avg: $7

97%

#1221

Z-01

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

94%

#1222

Pentium T2310

MSRP: $150|Avg: $14

91%

#1223

Celeron SU2300

MSRP: $134|Avg: $134

89%

#1224

Core i5-560UM

MSRP: $250|Avg: N/A

88%

#1225

Core i7-660UM

MSRP: $317|Avg: N/A

88%

#1226

C-30

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

88%

#1228

Core i7-620UM

MSRP: $278|Avg: N/A

85%

#1230

Celeron 570

MSRP: $134|Avg: $15

82%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron G1620

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

10220%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

9657%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

7012%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

2112%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

1673%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

1464%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

838%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

827%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

753%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

753%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

745%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

725%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

715%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

712%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

705%

#382

Ryzen Embedded R2544

MSRP: $280|Avg: $280

99%

#590

Celeron G1620

MSRP: $52|Avg: $40

100%

#591

Core i5-7600T

MSRP: $192|Avg: $60

100%

#593

Core i3-7300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $128

98%

#594

Celeron G1830

MSRP: $52|Avg: $5

98%

#596

Core i3-4160

MSRP: $117|Avg: $52

98%

#598

FX-8350

MSRP: $199|Avg: $130

98%

#599

Athlon X4 760K

MSRP: $100|Avg: $20

98%

#600

Core i5-6400

MSRP: $182|Avg: $57

98%

#602

Pentium G3460T

MSRP: $69|Avg: N/A

97%

#603

Core i3-6300

MSRP: $147|Avg: $99

97%

#604

Core i5-6402P

MSRP: $182|Avg: $120

96%

#605

Athlon II X4 620e

MSRP: $99|Avg: $40

96%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The Celeron G1620 leads in gaming performance. However, the Core 2 Quad Q9000 is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 0.7% greater multi-core processing power.

Insight	Core 2 Quad Q9000	Celeron G1620
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	✅ More affordable ($15)	⚠️ Higher cost ($40)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Core 2 Quad Q9000 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 63% cheaper ($15 vs $40) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Core 2 Quad Q9000	Celeron G1620
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+169%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($15)	⚠️ Higher cost ($40)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9000 Benchmark Check

Celeron G1620 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Celeron G1620

Core 2 Quad Q9000

The Core 2 Quad Q9000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,597 points. Launch price was $348.

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

The Core 2 Quad Q9000 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron G1620 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q9000 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9000 versus 2.7 GHz on the Celeron G1620 — a 29.8% clock advantage for the Celeron G1620 (base: 2 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Core 2 Quad Q9000 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron G1620 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Quad Q9000 scores 1,597 against the Celeron G1620's 1,586 — a 0.7% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q9000. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Quad Q9000 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9000	Celeron G1620
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.7 GHz+35%
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.7 GHz+35%
L3 Cache	6 MB L2 Cache+200%	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	6 MB+2300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,597	1,586
Geekbench 6 Single	—	441
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	760

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Quad Q9000 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron G1620 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9000	Celeron G1620
Socket	PGA478	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 Quad Q9000) / VT-x, EPT (Celeron G1620). The Celeron G1620 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1)), while the Core 2 Quad Q9000 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620 rivals Pentium G2030.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9000	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

💰

Value Analysis

The Core 2 Quad Q9000 launched at $348 MSRP, while the Celeron G1620 debuted at $52. At current prices ($15 vs $40), the Core 2 Quad Q9000 is $25 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 2 Quad Q9000 delivers 106.5 pts/$ vs 39.6 pts/$ for the Celeron G1620 — making the Core 2 Quad Q9000 the 91.5% better value option.