Celeron Dual-Core T3300 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3300 by a whopping 188% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2375 | 2991 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 1.08 |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 1 February 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 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 | no data | Socket P 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 0.40 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q6600 has a 187.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron Dual-Core T3300, on the other hand, has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Core 2 Quad Q6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300, 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.
