Celeron M 380 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 380 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking2268not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.77no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore 2 Quad (Desktop)Celeron M
Architecture codenameKentsfield (2007)Dothan (2004−2005)
Release dateno datano data
Current price$67 $77

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 380 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads41
Base clock speedno data1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus support1066 MHz400 MHz
L3 cacheno data1 MB L2 KB
Chip lithography65 nm90 nm
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo
VID voltage rangeno data1.004V-1.292V

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 380 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 dataPPGA478, H-PBGA479
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt21 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 380. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
PAEno data32 Bit
FSB parityno data-
Statusno dataDiscontinued

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 380 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 380 are enumerated here.

VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 380. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

ECC memory supportno data-

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 4 1
Threads 4 1
Chip lithography 65 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 21 Watt

We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 380. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 380 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron M 380, 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 M 380
Celeron M 380

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 1675 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 9 votes

Rate Celeron M 380 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 M 380, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.