Celeron 900 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Celeron 900 by a whopping 342% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2375 | 3137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 0.70 |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | no data |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 900 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) | no data |
| Threads | 4 | no data |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 900 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 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 900. 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 | - |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 900 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 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 900 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 0.26 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q6600 has a 342.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron 900, on the other hand, has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Core 2 Quad Q6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 900 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron 900 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron 900, 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.
