Celeron 1005M vs Core 2 Extreme X6800

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Celeron 1005M vs Core 2 Extreme X6800 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Celeron 1005M vs Core 2 Extreme X6800: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron 1005M

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Core 2 Extreme X6800 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,116 vs 1,118).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core 2 Extreme X6800 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌582.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 75W.

Core 2 Extreme X6800

2006

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 75W instead of 512W, a 437W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1005M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1005M better than Core 2 Extreme X6800?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 1005M is ahead with a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Extreme X6800 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Extreme X6800 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron 1005M is the better buy right now. Celeron 1005M comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core 2 Extreme X6800 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.2% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (13.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron 1005M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 1005M vs Core 2 Extreme X6800 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron 1005M

The Celeron 1005M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,116 points. Launch price was $86.

Core 2 Extreme X6800

The Core 2 Extreme X6800 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 July 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Conroe XE (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.933 GHz, with boost up to 0.93 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 75 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,118 points. Launch price was $999.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1005M and Core 2 Extreme X6800 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 1005M versus 0.93 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X6800 — a 68.6% clock advantage for the Celeron 1005M (base: 1.9 GHz vs 2.933 GHz). The Celeron 1005M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core 2 Extreme X6800 uses Conroe XE (2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1005M scores 1,116 against the Core 2 Extreme X6800's 1,118 — a 0.2% lead for the Core 2 Extreme X6800. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 1005M vs 0 kB on the Core 2 Extreme X6800.

Feature	Celeron 1005M	Core 2 Extreme X6800
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz+104%	0.93 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	2.933 GHz+54%
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	4 MB (total)+700%
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Conroe XE (2006)
PassMark	1,116	1,118
Cinebench R23 Multi	656	—
Geekbench 6 Single	350	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	607	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1005M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Extreme X6800 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 1005M	Core 2 Extreme X6800
Socket	PGA988	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 1005M) / not specified (Core 2 Extreme X6800). The Celeron 1005M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Core 2 Extreme X6800 requires a dedicated GPU.