Celeron T3500 vs Core 2 Duo E6850

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and Celeron T3500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2693not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore 2 Duo (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency1.03no data
Architecture codenameConroe (2006−2007)no data
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)1 July 2010 (14 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and Celeron T3500 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)no data
Threads2no data
Base clock speedno data2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHzno data
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L3 cacheno data1 MB
Chip lithography65 nm45 nm
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6850 and Celeron T3500 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.

Socketno dataPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

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 E6850 1130
+48.3%
Celeron T3500 762

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 E6850 332
+40.7%
Celeron T3500 236

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 E6850 559
+59.7%
Celeron T3500 350

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 65 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

Celeron T3500 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Core 2 Duo E6850 and Celeron T3500. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Core 2 Duo E6850 is a desktop processor while Celeron T3500 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6850 and Celeron T3500, 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 E6850
Core 2 Duo E6850
Intel Celeron T3500
Celeron T3500

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 73 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo E6850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 8 votes

Rate Celeron T3500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo E6850 or Celeron T3500, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.