Celeron 6305 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q6600
2007
4 cores / 4 threads, 105 Watt
1.15
Celeron 6305
2020
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.31
+13.9%

Celeron 6305 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23892276
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore 2 Quad (Desktop)Intel Tiger Lake
Power efficiency1.048.26
Architecture codenameKentsfield (2007)Tiger Lake-U (2020)
Release dateno data1 September 2020 (4 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305 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
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHz4 GT/s
L1 cache64K (per core)160 KB
L2 cache8 MB (shared)2.5 MB
L3 cache0 KB4 MB
Chip lithography65 nm10 nm SuperFin
Die size2x 143 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors582 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305 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 configuration11
Socket775FCBGA1449
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305 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 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics for 11th Gen Intel Processors
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data1.25 GHz
Execution Unitsno data48

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data4

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

Max resolution over HDMI 1.4no data4096x2304@60Hz
Max resolution over eDPno data4096x2304@60Hz
Max resolution over DisplayPortno data7680x4320@60Hz

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data12.1
OpenGLno data4.6

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.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 1.15
Celeron 6305 1.31
+13.9%

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 Quad Q6600 1823
Celeron 6305 2080
+14.1%

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 Quad Q6600 268
Celeron 6305 749
+179%

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 Quad Q6600 764
Celeron 6305 1264
+65.4%

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 Quad Q6600 2460
Celeron 6305 3465
+40.9%

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 Quad Q6600 8800
+33.1%
Celeron 6305 6611

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.15 1.31
Recency no data 1 September 2020
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 65 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 15 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q6600 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron 6305, on the other hand, has a 13.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2020 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 600% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 6305 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron 6305 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron 6305, 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 Quad Q6600
Core 2 Quad Q6600
Intel Celeron 6305
Celeron 6305

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.


3.8 1797 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 153 votes

Rate Celeron 6305 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q6600 or Celeron 6305, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.