Celeron B830 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9400 outperforms Celeron B830 by a whopping 149% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron B830 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2163 | 2743 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.51 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | August 2008 (15 years ago) | 2 September 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $86 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron B830 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron B830 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 775 | Socket G2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron B830. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| FMA | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron B830 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron B830 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron B830. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron B830.
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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 Q9400 outperforms Celeron B830 by 149% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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 Q9400 outperforms Celeron B830 by 148% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Core 2 Quad Q9400 outperforms Celeron B830 by 24% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Core 2 Quad Q9400 outperforms Celeron B830 by 96% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.37 | 0.55 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9400 has a 149.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron B830, on the other hand, has a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.
The Core 2 Quad Q9400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B830 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q9400 is a desktop processor while Celeron B830 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Celeron B830, 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.
