Celeron M 420 vs Core 2 Duo E6600
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron M 420 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2806 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Duo (Desktop) | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 0.84 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Conroe (2006−2007) | Yonah (2005−2006) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron M 420 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB L2 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.0V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron M 420 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.
| Socket | no data | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 27 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron M 420. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron M 420 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron M 420 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 27 Watt |
Core 2 Duo E6600 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron M 420, on the other hand, has 140.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Duo E6600 and Celeron M 420. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Duo E6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 420 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6600 and Celeron M 420, 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.
