i7-2669M vs Celeron 2.60
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.60 and Core i7-2669M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i7 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | June 2003 (21 year ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.60 and Core i7-2669M 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 22 |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | 624 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.60 and Core i7-2669M 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 478 | Socket G2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.60 and Core i7-2669M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 2.60 and Core i7-2669M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.60 and Core i7-2669M are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.60 and Core i7-2669M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR3-1333 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 3000 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 35 Watt |
i7-2669M has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 306.3% more advanced lithography process, and 108.6% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 2.60 and Core i7-2669M. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron 2.60 is a desktop processor while Core i7-2669M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.60 and Core i7-2669M, 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.
