Celeron T3100 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron T3100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2270 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.77 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | no data |
| Release date | no data | 1 July 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Current price | $67 | $32 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | no data |
| Threads | 4 | no data |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | no data |
| Bus support | 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 | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1V-1.25V |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron 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.
| Socket | no data | BGA479,PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron T3100. 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 | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron T3100 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 Q6600 and Celeron T3100 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.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Celeron T3100 by 203% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Celeron T3100 by 26% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Celeron T3100 by 111% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron T3100. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron T3100 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron T3100, 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.
