Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs Celeron N6211
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N6211 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N6211 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2197 | 2373 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.33 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Elkhart Lake | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 20.53 | 1.04 |
| Architecture codename | Elkhart Lake (2022) | Kentsfield (2007) |
| Release date | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $54 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N6211 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1066 MHz |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N6211 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 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 | BGA1493 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6.5 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N6211 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N6211 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) | 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.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.41 | 1.15 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 105 Watt |
Celeron N6211 has a 22.6% higher aggregate performance score, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 1650% lower power consumption.
Core 2 Quad Q6600, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The Celeron N6211 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N6211 and Core 2 Quad Q6600, 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.
