Core 2 Quad Q9400 vs Core m3-6Y30

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9400 vs Core m3-6Y30 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core 2 Quad Q9400 vs Core m3-6Y30: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core 2 Quad Q9400

2008

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $52 less on MSRP ($229 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅Delivers 21.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 9.4 vs 7.8 PassMark/$ ($229 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅Draws 95W instead of 512W, a 417W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,160 vs 2,180).

Core m3-6Y30

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.9% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core 2 Quad Q9400 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.8 vs 9.4 PassMark/$ ($281 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
❌438.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 95W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Quad Q9400 better than Core m3-6Y30?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Quad Q9400 is ahead with a 3.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core m3-6Y30 pulls ahead with 0.9% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core m3-6Y30 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core 2 Quad Q9400 is the better buy right now. Core 2 Quad Q9400 comes in $52 cheaper on MSRP at $229 MSRP versus $281 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core m3-6Y30 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.9% better PassMark. It is also 21.6% better value on MSRP (9.4 vs 7.8 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core m3-6Y30 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core 2 Quad Q9400 vs Core m3-6Y30 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core 2 Quad Q9400

The Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 2.66 GHz, with boost up to 2.67 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: 2,160 points. Launch price was $249.

Core m3-6Y30

The Core m3-6Y30 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake-Y (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 0.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,180 points. Launch price was $281.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 2 Quad Q9400 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core m3-6Y30 offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q9400 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.67 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9400 versus 2.2 GHz on the Core m3-6Y30 — a 19.3% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q9400 (base: 2.66 GHz vs 0.9 GHz). The Core 2 Quad Q9400 uses the Yorkfield (2007−2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Core m3-6Y30 uses Skylake-Y (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Quad Q9400 scores 2,160 against the Core m3-6Y30's 2,180 — a 0.9% lead for the Core m3-6Y30. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Core 2 Quad Q9400 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core m3-6Y30.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9400	Core m3-6Y30
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.67 GHz+21%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.66 GHz+196%	0.9 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	6 MB (total)+2300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	45 nm	14 nm-69%
Architecture	Yorkfield (2007−2009)	Skylake-Y (2015)
PassMark	2,160	2,180

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Quad Q9400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core m3-6Y30 uses FCBGA1515 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9400	Core m3-6Y30
Socket	LGA775	FCBGA1515
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q9400) / not specified (Core m3-6Y30). Primary use case: Core 2 Quad Q9400 targets Desktop.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9400	Core m3-6Y30
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core 2 Quad Q9400 was priced at $229, while the Core m3-6Y30 came in at $281. On launch pricing ($229 vs $281), Core 2 Quad Q9400 was $52 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 2 Quad Q9400 delivers 9.4 pts/$ vs 7.8 pts/$ for the Core m3-6Y30 — making the Core 2 Quad Q9400 the 19.5% better value option.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q9400	Core m3-6Y30
MSRP	$229-19%	$281
Performance per Dollar	9.4+21%	7.8
Release Date	2008	2015

Search Core 2 Quad Q9400 on Amazon

Search Core m3-6Y30 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.