Celeron 450 vs Core 2 Quad Q8400
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron 450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2185 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.73 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Conroe-L (2007−2008) |
| Release date | April 2009 (15 years ago) | August 2008 (15 years ago) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron 450 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 77 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 60 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 105 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron 450 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 775 | 775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron 450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron 450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core 2 Quad Q8400 outperforms Celeron 450 by 398% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q8400 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 450, on the other hand, has 171.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron 450. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron 450, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
