Core 2 Quad Q9100 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Core 2 Quad Q9100
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
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 Quad Q9100 is positioned at rank 69 and the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is on rank 824, so the Core 2 Quad Q9100 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 Quad Q9100
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core 2 Quad Q9100 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($14) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn-1M (2009) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core 2 Quad Q9100 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+8%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($14) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
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.
Counter-Strike 2
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000
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.
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,797 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Core 2 Quad Q9100 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q9100 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.26 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9100 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — a 22.7% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q9100. The Core 2 Quad Q9100 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses Penryn-1M (2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Quad Q9100 scores 1,806 against the Celeron Dual-Core T3000's 1,797 — a 0.5% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q9100.
| Feature | Core 2 Quad Q9100 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4+100% | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.26 GHz+26% | 1.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.26 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | — |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB (total)+500% | 1 MB |
| Process | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Penryn (2008−2011) | Penryn-1M (2009) |
| PassMark | 1,806 | 1,797 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 2 Quad Q9100 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Core 2 Quad Q9100) vs 16 (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) — the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Core 2 Quad Q9100 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | P |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1066 | DDR3-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q9100) vs false (Celeron Dual-Core T3000). Primary use case: Core 2 Quad Q9100 targets Mobile.
| Feature | Core 2 Quad Q9100 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | false |
| Target Use | Mobile | — |
Value Analysis
The Core 2 Quad Q9100 launched at $14 MSRP, while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 debuted at $80. At current prices ($14 vs $15), the Core 2 Quad Q9100 is $1 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 2 Quad Q9100 delivers 129.0 pts/$ vs 119.8 pts/$ for the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — making the Core 2 Quad Q9100 the 7.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core 2 Quad Q9100 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $14-83% | $80 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $14-7% | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 129.0+8% | 119.8 |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2009 |
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 Quad Q9100 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000
