Intel Celeron G5920 vs Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Celeron G5920 has 2 cores and 2 threads.

Q: How do their single-core benchmark scores compare?

A: The Celeron G5920 wins every recorded single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 133 versus the QX9650's 123, a 7.5% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Celeron scores 318 versus 293, a 7.9% lead.

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Celeron G5920 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, while the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz. Neither processor features a boost clock in the recorded data.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Core 2 Extreme QX9650 has a TDP of 130 watts, whereas the Celeron G5920 has a TDP of 58 watts. This indicates a substantial difference in thermal and power requirements.

Q: Do both processors support integrated graphics?

A: The Celeron G5920 includes Intel UHD 610 integrated graphics. The Core 2 Extreme QX9650 relies on a chipset feature, with integrated graphics available only on certain motherboards.

Q: What is the memory support difference?

A: The QX9650 supports DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Celeron G5920 supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a measured memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans over a decade of Intel design evolution. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650, released in 2007, belongs to the Core 2 family with the Yorkfield codename. It is built on a 45 nm process node and packs 820 million transistors across a dual-die design measuring 2x 107 mm². Its cache layout consists of 64 KB of L1 per core and a shared 12 MB L2 cache, with no L3 cache present.

In contrast, the Intel Celeron G5920, released in 2020, uses the Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node. It features a simpler layout: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 2 MB of shared L3 cache. The process node shrink from 45 nm to 14 nm is significant, though the transistor count and die size for the Celeron are not recorded in the database.

Memory support differs considerably. The QX9650 supports DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3, reflecting the transitional era of its release. The Celeron G5920 supports only DDR4 but with a defined memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also differs: the QX9650 uses Gen 2, while the Celeron G5920 uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The Celeron G5920 includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD 610, whereas the QX9650's graphics capability depends on motherboard chipset features. The QX9650 has an unlocked multiplier, making it a candidate for overclocking, while the Celeron G5920 has a locked multiplier. The production status of the QX9650 is end-of-life, while the Celeron G5920 remains active.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Celeron G5920 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests. The Celeron's smallest margin is 7.5% (Cinebench R15 multicore and R20 single-core), and its largest margin is 7.9% (Cinebench R23 single-core). In every category, single-core and multicore, the Celeron outperforms the Core 2 Extreme, despite having half the cores and threads.

The QX9650's four cores do not compensate for its architectural age. Its average benchmark score is 789, with a percentile ranking of 21 among all CPUs. The Celeron G5920 posts an average score of 775, also ranking at the 21st percentile. This near-identical average score, combined with the Celeron's consistent per-test wins, suggests the Celeron delivers more efficient performance per core.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the Celeron G5920 is the rational pick for most workloads. It wins every benchmark, consumes less than half the power (58 watts versus 130 watts), supports modern DDR4 memory, includes integrated graphics, and remains an active production part. The QX9650's only advantages are its four cores, larger shared L2 cache (12 MB), and unlocked multiplier, but none of these translate into benchmark victories.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications for the two processors differ across nearly every field:

• Cores and Threads: QX9650 has 4 cores and 4 threads; Celeron G5920 has 2 cores and 2 threads.
• Base Clock: QX9650 runs at 3.00 GHz; Celeron G5920 runs at 3.50 GHz.
• TDP: QX9650 consumes 130 watts; Celeron G5920 consumes 58 watts.
• Socket: QX9650 uses Intel Socket 775; Celeron G5920 uses Intel Socket 1200.
• Architecture and Codename: QX9650 is Core 2 with codename Yorkfield; Celeron G5920 is Comet Lake.
• Process Node: QX9650 is 45 nm; Celeron G5920 is 14 nm.
• Transistors: QX9650 has 820 million; Celeron G5920 has no recorded figure.
• Die Size: QX9650 is 2x 107 mm²; Celeron G5920 has no recorded figure.
• L2 Cache: QX9650 has 12 MB shared; Celeron G5920 has 256 KB per core.
• L3 Cache: QX9650 has none; Celeron G5920 has 2 MB shared.
• Memory Support: QX9650 supports DDR1, DDR2, DDR3; Celeron G5920 supports DDR4.
• Memory Bandwidth: Not recorded for QX9650; Celeron G5920 has 42.7 GB/s.
• PCIe: QX9650 is Gen 2; Celeron G5920 is Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only).
• Integrated Graphics: QX9650 relies on chipset feature on certain motherboards; Celeron G5920 has UHD 610.
• Production Status: QX9650 is end-of-life; Celeron G5920 is active.
• Release Date: QX9650 released 2007-11-29; Celeron G5920 released 2020-04-29.
• Multiplier: QX9650 is unlocked; Celeron G5920 is locked.
• Part Number: QX9650 is SLAN3; Celeron G5920 is SRH42.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Celeron G5920 takes a clean sweep in the recorded benchmark suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Celeron scores 226 against the QX9650's 209, a 7.5% advantage. The margin widens slightly in Cinebench R20 multicore: 945 versus 872, a 7.7% lead. The Celeron also wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 133 points to 123, another 7.5% margin.

Cinebench R23 results continue the pattern. In the multicore test, the Celeron scores 2252 versus the QX9650's 2077, a 7.8% difference. The single-core test shows 318 versus 293, the largest margin at 7.9%. These results indicate a consistent performance gap that does not favor the QX9650's extra cores.

The Geekbench results are only recorded for the QX9650, with a multicore score of 1443 and a single-core score of 509. The Celeron G5920 has no Geekbench entries in the database, so a direct comparison in that suite is not possible. However, the Cinebench pattern is sufficient to establish the Celeron's superiority across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The QX9650 averages 789, while the Celeron averages 775. This puts the QX9650 marginally ahead on average, but the Celeron's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-3250T (775, 0% delta) and the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 (776, -0.1% delta). The QX9650's nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 3350 HE (789, 0% delta) and the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (790, -0.1% delta). Both processors sit at the 21st percentile of all CPUs, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier overall.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Celeron G5920 wins every benchmark where both processors have recorded scores. Its advantages are most pronounced in single-core performance, where it leads by 7.5% to 7.9%. This makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications, daily desktop tasks, and any workload that relies heavily on per-core speed. Its lower TDP of 58 watts also makes it suitable for compact or power-conscious builds, and its integrated UHD 610 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems.

The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it holds structural advantages that may matter in specific scenarios. Its four cores and 12 MB of shared L2 cache could theoretically benefit legacy multi-threaded applications that are not represented in the benchmark suite. Its unlocked multiplier is an option for enthusiasts willing to push the aging 45 nm architecture. It also supports DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3 memory, which may be relevant for someone maintaining an older platform.

However, the data does not support choosing the QX9650 for performance reasons. The Celeron G5920 is faster in every tested metric, more energy-efficient, and based on a much newer process node. The QX9650's only practical role is in legacy systems where the Socket 775 platform is already in place and the user specifically requires four physical cores. For any new build, the Celeron G5920 is the clear winner according to the recorded benchmarks.