Celeron 1017U vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q6600
2007
4 cores / 4 threads, 105 Watt
1.15
+21.1%
Celeron 1017U
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.95

Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Celeron 1017U by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 1017U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23882516
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore 2 Quad (Desktop)Intel Celeron
Power efficiency1.045.29
Architecture codenameKentsfield (2007)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release dateno data1 July 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 1017U 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 speedno data1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHz5 GT/s
L1 cache64K (per core)128 KB
L2 cache8 MB (shared)512 KB
L3 cache0 KB2 MB
Chip lithography65 nm22 nm
Die size2x 143 mm294 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors582 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 1017U 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
Socket775FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 1017U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 1017U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 1017U are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 1017U. 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 data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 1017U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 1017U.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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 Q6600 1.15
+21.1%
Celeron 1017U 0.95

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 Q6600 1823
+20.9%
Celeron 1017U 1508

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.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 268
+1.9%
Celeron 1017U 263

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.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 764
+68.3%
Celeron 1017U 454

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 Q6600 2460
+11.8%
Celeron 1017U 2201

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 Q6600 8800
+112%
Celeron 1017U 4155

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 3547
+106%
Celeron 1017U 1719

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.15 0.95
Recency no data 1 July 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 65 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 17 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q6600 has a 21.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron 1017U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2013 years, a 195.5% more advanced lithography process, and 517.6% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Quad Q6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1017U in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron 1017U is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron 1017U, 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 Q6600
Core 2 Quad Q6600
Intel Celeron 1017U
Celeron 1017U

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 1797 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 71 vote

Rate Celeron 1017U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q6600 or Celeron 1017U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.