Core 2 Duo E6600 vs Celeron J4105

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron J4105
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 10 Watt
1.83
+216%
Core 2 Duo E6600
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.58

Celeron J4105 outperforms Core 2 Duo E6600 by a whopping 216% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19962808
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.11no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesIntel CeleronCore 2 Duo (Desktop)
Power efficiency17.320.84
Architecture codenameGoldmont Plus (2017)Conroe (2006−2007)
Release date11 December 2017 (6 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.5 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rateno data1066 MHz
Multiplier15no data
L1 cache56 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache4 MB (shared)no data
L3 cache4 MBno data
Chip lithography14 nm65 nm
Die size93 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketFCBGA1090no data
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Smart Response-no data
GPIO+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data

Security technologies

Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 are enumerated here.

VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4no data
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth38.397 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel UHD Graphics 600no data
Max video memory8 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency750 MHzno data
Execution Units12no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
MIPI-DSI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution support+no data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12no data
OpenGL4.4no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes6no data
USB revision2.0/3.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports2no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN-no data
UART+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.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron J4105 1.83
+216%
Core 2 Duo E6600 0.58

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.

Celeron J4105 2903
+216%
Core 2 Duo E6600 919

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.

Celeron J4105 325
+24.5%
Core 2 Duo E6600 261

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.

Celeron J4105 923
+119%
Core 2 Duo E6600 421

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Celeron J4105 270
+131%
Core 2 Duo E6600 117

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Celeron J4105 73
+17.7%
Core 2 Duo E6600 62

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.83 0.58
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 65 Watt

Celeron J4105 has a 215.5% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.

The Celeron J4105 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E6600 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J4105 and Core 2 Duo E6600, 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 Celeron J4105
Celeron J4105
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
Core 2 Duo E6600

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.


3.4 303 votes

Rate Celeron J4105 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 438 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo E6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron J4105 or Core 2 Duo E6600, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.