Celeron G3900E vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Aggregate performance score
Celeron G3900E outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron G3900E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2373 | 2276 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.12 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 3.46 |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 2 January 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron G3900E 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 98.57 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1750 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron G3900E 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 configuration | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron G3900E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron G3900E are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron G3900E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | LPDDR3-1866 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 34.134 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 510 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron G3900E.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 1.28 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q6600 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron G3900E, on the other hand, has a 11.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Celeron G3900E is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron G3900E is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron G3900E, 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.
