Core 2 Quad Q9300 vs Celeron M 560

Core 2 Quad Q9300

4 Cores4 Thrd95 WWMax: 2.5 GHz2008

Celeron M 560

1 Cores1 Thrd1 WWMax: 2.13 GHz2008

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core 2 Quad Q9300

4 / 4

2,011

+0.1%

2,008

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 Q9300 is positioned at rank 1039 and the Celeron M 560 is on rank 819, so the Celeron M 560 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 Q9300

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

41232%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

38960%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

28288%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

8522%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

6750%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

5905%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

3382%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

3338%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

3039%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

3039%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

3005%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

2924%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

2883%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

2872%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

2846%

#1039

Core 2 Quad Q9300

MSRP: $266|Avg: $27

100%

#1040

Athlon II X4 638

MSRP: $300|Avg: $280

100%

#1041

Core 2 Duo E7200

MSRP: $133|Avg: $133

100%

#1043

Phenom X3 8750

MSRP: $195|Avg: $20

98%

#1044

Pentium G4400TE

MSRP: $300|Avg: $250

97%

#1045

Celeron 2.60

MSRP: $53|Avg: $10

96%

#1046

Core i7-990X

MSRP: $999|Avg: $225

94%

#1047

Phenom X4 9750B

MSRP: $215|Avg: $34

94%

#1048

Core 2 Duo E8200

MSRP: $163|Avg: $20

93%

#1049

Core 2 Quad Q9450

MSRP: $316|Avg: $15

92%

#1050

Core 2 Duo E8600

MSRP: $200|Avg: $95

91%

#1051

Core 2 Duo E6320

MSRP: $163|Avg: $5

90%

#1052

Core i7-980X

MSRP: $999|Avg: $150

90%

#1053

Athlon 64 X2 3600+

MSRP: $150|Avg: $10

90%

#1054

Core 2 Duo E6420

MSRP: $183|Avg: $10

89%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron M 560

#807

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

1257%

#808

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

1238%

#809

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

1137%

#810

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

1131%

#811

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

1121%

#813

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

1083%

#814

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

1038%

#815

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

1036%

#816

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

1009%

#819

Celeron M 560

MSRP: $86|Avg: $10

100%

#824

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

MSRP: $80|Avg: $15

96%

#825

Pentium P6100

MSRP: $100|Avg: $16.39

96%

#828

Celeron M 575

MSRP: $86|Avg: $12

95%

#829

Core i7-10710U

MSRP: $415|Avg: N/A

95%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Core 2 Quad Q9300 delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Celeron M 560 in both compute-intensive tasks (0.1% faster) and gaming workloads.

Insight	Core 2 Quad Q9300	Celeron M 560
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	⚠️ Higher cost ($27)	✅ More affordable ($10)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Yorkfield (2007−2009) / 45 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Value Proposition: While both processors are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Celeron M 560 holds the technical lead in efficiency. Priced at $10 (vs $27), it costs 63% less. While offering basic entry-level performance, it results in a 170% higher cost efficiency score compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9300.

Insight	Core 2 Quad Q9300	Celeron M 560
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+170%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️ Higher cost ($27)	✅ More affordable ($10)

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 Q9300 Benchmark Check

Celeron M 560 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core 2 Quad Q9300 and Celeron M 560

Core 2 Quad Q9300

The Core 2 Quad Q9300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Yorkfield (2007−2009) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,011 points. Launch price was $249.

Celeron M 560

The Celeron M 560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.13 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,008 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 2 Quad Q9300 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron M 560 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q9300 has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9300 versus 2.13 GHz on the Celeron M 560 — a 16% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q9300. The Core 2 Quad Q9300 uses the Yorkfield (2007−2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron M 560 uses Merom (2006−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Quad Q9300 scores 2,011 against the Celeron M 560's 2,008 — a 0.1% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q9300.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9300	Celeron M 560
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+300%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+17%	2.13 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	6 MB (total)+500%	1 MB
Process	45 nm-31%	65 nm
Architecture	Yorkfield (2007−2009)	Merom (2006−2008)
PassMark	2,011	2,008

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Quad Q9300 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron M 560 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Core 2 Quad Q9300 versus 667 on the Celeron M 560 — the Celeron M 560 supports 198.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core 2 Quad Q9300 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core 2 Quad Q9300) vs 0 (Celeron M 560) — the Core 2 Quad Q9300 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: P35,P45,X38,X48 (Core 2 Quad Q9300) and GL960,GM965 (Celeron M 560).

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9300	Celeron M 560
Socket	LGA775	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	667+22133%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+419430300%	4
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core 2 Quad Q9300) / false (Celeron M 560). Direct competitor: Celeron M 560 rivals Mobile Sempron 3600+.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9300	Celeron M 560
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	false

💰

Value Analysis

The Core 2 Quad Q9300 launched at $266 MSRP, while the Celeron M 560 debuted at $86. At current prices ($27 vs $10), the Celeron M 560 is $17 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 2 Quad Q9300 delivers 74.5 pts/$ vs 200.8 pts/$ for the Celeron M 560 — making the Celeron M 560 the 91.8% better value option.