Celeron G550T vs Core 2 Duo E6550

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo E6550
2007
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.58
Celeron G550T
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.71
+22.4%

Celeron G550T outperforms Core 2 Duo E6550 by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking27092600
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.68no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Architecture codenameConroe (2006−2007)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release dateJuly 2007 (17 years ago)4 September 2011 (12 years ago)
Current price$33 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.33 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.33 GHz2.2 GHz
L1 cache64 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB256 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography65 nm32 nm
Die size143 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperature72 °C65 °C
Number of transistors291 million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo
VID voltage range0.85V-1.5Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T 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 configuration11
SocketPLGA775FCLGA1155
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI--
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switching-no data
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+
FSB parity-no data
StatusDiscontinuedDiscontinued

Security technologies

Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data17 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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 Duo E6550 0.58
Celeron G550T 0.71
+22.4%

Celeron G550T outperforms Core 2 Duo E6550 by 22% 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 Duo E6550 895
Celeron G550T 1102
+23.1%

Celeron G550T outperforms Core 2 Duo E6550 by 23% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.58 0.71
Chip lithography 65 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

The Celeron G550T is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E6550 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6550 and Celeron G550T, 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 Duo E6550
Core 2 Duo E6550
Intel Celeron G550T
Celeron G550T

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.


3.3 341 vote

Rate Core 2 Duo E6550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Celeron G550T on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo E6550 or Celeron G550T, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.