Celeron Dual-Core T3100 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q6600
4 cores / 4 threads, 105 Watt
1.18
+55.3%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.76

Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3100 by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23422630
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore 2 Quad (Desktop)Intel Celeron Dual-Core
Architecture codenameKentsfield (2007)Penryn (2008−2011)
Release dateno data1 September 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.9 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHz800 MHz
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cacheno data1 MB
Chip lithography65 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data107 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistorsno data410 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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.

Socketno dataBGA479, PGA478
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt35 Watt

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 1.18
+55.3%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 0.76

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 1816
+54.7%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 1174

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
+29.5%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 1900

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
+135%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 3740

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
+110%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 1687

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 0.76
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 65 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 35 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q6600 has a 55.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100, 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 Dual-Core T3100 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron Dual-Core T3100 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100, 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 Dual-Core T3100
Celeron Dual-Core T3100

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 1723 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 33 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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 Dual-Core T3100, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.