Celeron M 310 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron M 310 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2342 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Banias (2003) |
| Release date | no data | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron M 310 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | 400 MHz |
| L3 cache | no data | 512 KB L2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 130 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.356V |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron M 310 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 | H-PBGA479, PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 24.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron M 310. 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 | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron M 310 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 M 310 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 24 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q6600 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 310, on the other hand, has 337.5% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 310. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 310 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 310, 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.
