Celeron 847 vs Core 2 Duo E6600

VS

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron 847 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2803not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore 2 Duo (Desktop)Intel Celeron
Power efficiency0.84no data
Architecture codenameConroe (2006−2007)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)19 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$134

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron 847 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speedno data1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rate1066 MHz4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data11
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cacheno data256K (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography65 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data131 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistorsno data504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron 847 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 configurationno data1 (Uniprocessor)
Socketno dataFCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron 847. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron 847 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron 847 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron 847. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Graphics max frequencyno data800 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron 847 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Celeron 847.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.



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.

Core 2 Duo E6600 919
+91.5%
Celeron 847 480

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.

Core 2 Duo E6600 263
+67.5%
Celeron 847 157

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.

Core 2 Duo E6600 420
+60.3%
Celeron 847 262

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.

Core 2 Duo E6600 2462
+93.9%
Celeron 847 1270

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.

Core 2 Duo E6600 4698
+95.1%
Celeron 847 2408

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Core 2 Duo E6600 2052
+107%
Celeron 847 993

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Core 2 Duo E6600 36.2
+122%
Celeron 847 80.4

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Core 2 Duo E6600 1
+108%
Celeron 847 1

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Core 2 Duo E6600 0.2
+113%
Celeron 847 0.1

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Core 2 Duo E6600 1173
+42.4%
Celeron 847 824

Geekbench 2

Core 2 Duo E6600 2898
+43.9%
Celeron 847 2014

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 65 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 17 Watt

Celeron 847 has a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 282.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Core 2 Duo E6600 and Celeron 847. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Core 2 Duo E6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron 847 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6600 and Celeron 847, 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 Core 2 Duo E6600
Core 2 Duo E6600
Intel Celeron 847
Celeron 847

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.


3.2 432 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 355 votes

Rate Celeron 847 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo E6600 or Celeron 847, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.