Celeron 6305 vs Core 2 Quad Q9100

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9100
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
1.21
Celeron 6305
2020
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.31
+8.3%

Celeron 6305 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9100 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23302260
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesCore 2 QuadIntel Tiger Lake
Power efficiency2.548.26
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Tiger Lake-U (2020)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)1 September 2020 (4 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.26 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.26 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHz4 GT/s
L1 cache64 KB160 KB
L2 cache6 MB (per die)2.5 MB
L3 cache0 KB4 MB
Chip lithography45 nm10 nm SuperFin
Die size2x 107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C100 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
VID voltage range1.05V-1.175Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305 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
SocketPGA478FCBGA1449
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switching-no data
AMT+no data
FSB parity-no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB+no data
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel® UHD Graphics for 11th Gen Intel® Processors
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data1.25 GHz
Execution Unitsno data48

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data4

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

Max resolution over HDMI 1.4no data4096x2304@60Hz
Max resolution over eDPno data4096x2304@60Hz
Max resolution over DisplayPortno data7680x4320@60Hz

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data12.1
OpenGLno data4.6

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 Quad Q9100 1.21
Celeron 6305 1.31
+8.3%

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 Quad Q9100 1915
Celeron 6305 2080
+8.6%

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 Quad Q9100 2905
Celeron 6305 3465
+19.3%

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 Quad Q9100 10081
+52.5%
Celeron 6305 6611

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.21 1.31
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 15 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9100 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron 6305, on the other hand, has a 8.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 350% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9100 and Celeron 6305, 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 Quad Q9100
Core 2 Quad Q9100
Intel Celeron 6305
Celeron 6305

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.


3.8 47 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q9100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 147 votes

Rate Celeron 6305 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9100 or Celeron 6305, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.