Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q6600

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 0.5 MB 16x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better PassMark score 2,970 vs 1,042 More than 2.8x better PassMark score
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 924 vs 693 Around 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 4,161 vs 1,589 More than 2.5x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Significantly higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 2 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 8x more l2 cache per core
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.6 GHz vs 2 GHz More than 80% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.52 GHz vs 3.44 GHz Almost the same
Front view of Intel Celeron E1400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron E1400

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 85.31W Around 40% lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 73.3 °C vs 62.2 °C Around 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 91.98 $/year Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 25.29 $/year Around 40% lower annual home energy cost
Newer Apr, 2008 vs Jan, 2007 Release date over 1 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Celeron E1400

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Quad Q6600
102,800 MB/s
Celeron E1400
85,700 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs
Celeron E1400 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 2 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 105W 65W
Annual home energy cost 25.29 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 91.98 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 1.19 pt/W 1.2 pt/W
Typical power consumption 85.31W 52.81W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,066 MHz 800 MHz

details

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs
Celeron E1400 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 8 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 65 nm
Transistor count 582,000,000 105,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 10
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.5V 0.85 - 1.5V
Operating temperature Unknown - 62.2°C 5 - 73.3°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.52 GHz 3.44 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.6 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.52 GHz 3.44 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
Report a correction
Intel Celeron E1400
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus