Celeron N4120 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Extreme QX9300
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
1.14
Celeron N4120
2019
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
1.57
+37.7%

Celeron N4120 outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX9300 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23792106
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesCore 2 ExtremeIntel Gemini Lake
Power efficiency2.4024.76
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Gemini Lake Refresh (2019)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)4 November 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.53 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.53 GHz2.6 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KBno data
L2 cache12 MB4 MB
L3 cache0 KB4 MB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Die size2x 107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage range1.05V-1.175Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120 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.

Number of CPUs in a configuration21
SocketPGA478FCBGA1090
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2
AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data-
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
Demand Based Switching-no data
GPIOno data+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
AMT+no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics 600
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequencyno data700 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution supportno data+
Max resolution over HDMI 1.4no data4096x2160@30Hz
Max resolution over eDPno data4096x2160@60Hz
Max resolution over DisplayPortno data4096x2160@60Hz

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data12
OpenGLno data4.4

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data6
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data8
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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 Extreme QX9300 1.14
Celeron N4120 1.57
+37.7%

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 Extreme QX9300 1805
Celeron N4120 2487
+37.8%

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 Extreme QX9300 3114
+44.2%
Celeron N4120 2159

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 Extreme QX9300 10882
+69.2%
Celeron N4120 6432

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 Extreme QX9300 3780
+11.1%
Celeron N4120 3403

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 Extreme QX9300 15.74
+11.6%
Celeron N4120 17.56

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 3
Celeron N4120 3
+2.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.14 1.57
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 6 Watt

Celeron N4120 has a 37.7% higher aggregate performance score, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.

The Celeron N4120 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Celeron N4120, 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 Extreme QX9300
Core 2 Extreme QX9300
Intel Celeron N4120
Celeron N4120

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.


4.1 91 vote

Rate Core 2 Extreme QX9300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 513 votes

Rate Celeron N4120 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Extreme QX9300 or Celeron N4120, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.