Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Core 2 Duo T9400

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo T9400
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.64
+48.8%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.43

Core 2 Duo T9400 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3000 by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27762965
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core 2 DuoIntel Celeron Dual-Core
Power efficiency1.721.16
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Penryn-1M (2009)
Release date15 July 2008 (16 years ago)1 May 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$316no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.53 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.53 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHz800 MHz
L1 cache128 KB64 KB
L2 cache6 MB1 MB
L3 cache6 MB L2 Cacheno data
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size107 mm2107 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C105 °C
Number of transistors410 Million410 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1.05V-1.162Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

SocketBGA479,BGA956,PBGA479,PGA478P (478)
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Core 2 Duo T9400 0.64
+48.8%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 0.43

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Core 2 Duo T9400 1011
+47.2%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 687

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Core 2 Duo T9400 2818
+56.8%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1797

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Core 2 Duo T9400 5268
+58.2%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 3329

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Core 2 Duo T9400 2304
+44.6%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1593

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Core 2 Duo T9400 31
+47.3%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 45.65

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.64 0.43
Recency 15 July 2008 1 May 2009

Core 2 Duo T9400 has a 48.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months.

The Core 2 Duo T9400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo T9400 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Duo T9400
Core 2 Duo T9400
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Celeron Dual-Core T3000

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 119 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo T9400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 61 vote

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo T9400 or Celeron Dual-Core T3000, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.