Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) vs Celeron 420
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3323 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 0.41 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Conroe-L (2007−2008) | Kentsfield (2007) |
| Release date | June 2007 (17 years ago) | 23 July 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $23 | $266 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 8 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 77 mm2 | 2x 143 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 60 °C | 62 °C |
| Number of transistors | 105 million | 582 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1V-1.3375V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) 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 |
| Socket | LGA775 | 775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W). You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) 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 Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W). Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W).
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 95 Watt |
Celeron 420 has 171.4% lower power consumption.
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W), on the other hand, has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W). We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 420 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W), 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.
