Celeron 2950M vs Core 2 Duo E6420

Celeron 2950M

2 Cores2 Thrd512 WWMax: 2 GHz2013

Core 2 Duo E6420

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 2.13 GHz2007

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Celeron 2950M

2 / 2

1,238

+0.2%

1,235

0.0%

About PassMark

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron 2950M is positioned at rank 545 and the Core 2 Duo E6420 is on rank 1054, so the Celeron 2950M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2950M

#173

Core Ultra 5 238V

MSRP: $454|Avg: $454

97%

#533

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

711%

#534

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

701%

#535

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

643%

#536

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

640%

#537

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

634%

#539

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

613%

#540

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

587%

#541

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

586%

#542

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

571%

#545

Celeron 2950M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#549

Celeron Dual-Core T1500

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $49

98%

#557

Pentium P6200

MSRP: $60|Avg: $25

97%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Duo E6420

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

46180%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

43636%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

31683%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

9545%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

7560%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

6614%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

3788%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

3739%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

3404%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

3404%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

3366%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

3275%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

3229%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

3216%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

3187%

#1054

Core 2 Duo E6420

MSRP: $183|Avg: $10

100%

#1055

Phenom X4 9600B

MSRP: $278|Avg: $20

98%

#1056

Pentium D 940

MSRP: $132|Avg: $15

98%

#1057

Phenom II X3 B77

MSRP: $281|Avg: $35

97%

#1058

Core 2 Duo E6300

MSRP: $163|Avg: $5

96%

#1059

Core 2 Duo E6400

MSRP: $183|Avg: $10

95%

#1060

Core 2 Duo E8300

MSRP: $163|Avg: $20

94%

#1061

Phenom X4 9500

MSRP: $247|Avg: $30

94%

#1062

Celeron D 352

MSRP: $69|Avg: $15

90%

#1063

Core i7-970

MSRP: $1083|Avg: $289

90%

#1064

Core i7-880

MSRP: $583|Avg: $40

87%

#1065

Pentium D 820

MSRP: $241|Avg: $20

87%

#1066

Celeron 2.10

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

86%

#1067

Core i7-950

MSRP: $562|Avg: $15

86%

#1068

Sempron 3100+

MSRP: $65|Avg: $15

85%

#1069

Athlon II X4 635

MSRP: $400|Avg: $250

83%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Generational Difference: This comparison involves processors from different technological eras. The Celeron 2950M (2013) utilizes 22 nm technology and DDR3, providing a fundamental performance advantage.

Insight	Celeron 2950M	Core 2 Duo E6420
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	✅ More affordable ($0)	⚠️ Higher cost ($10)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Haswell (2013−2015) / 22 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Conroe (2006−2007) / 65 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

The Core 2 Duo E6420 (2007) relies on 65 nm technology and DDR1, DDR2, DDR3, placing it in a different performance category relative to modern standards.

Insight	Celeron 2950M	Core 2 Duo E6420
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($0)	⚠️ Higher cost ($10)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Celeron 2950M Benchmark Check

Core 2 Duo E6420 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 2950M and Core 2 Duo E6420

Celeron 2950M

The Celeron 2950M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,238 points. Launch price was $75.

Core 2 Duo E6420

The Core 2 Duo E6420 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,235 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2950M and Core 2 Duo E6420 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron 2950M versus 2.13 GHz on the Core 2 Duo E6420 — a 6.3% clock advantage for the Core 2 Duo E6420 (base: 2 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The Celeron 2950M uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Core 2 Duo E6420 uses Conroe (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2950M scores 1,238 against the Core 2 Duo E6420's 1,235 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron 2950M. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 2950M vs 0 kB on the Core 2 Duo E6420.

Feature	Celeron 2950M	Core 2 Duo E6420
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.13 GHz+6%
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.13 GHz+6%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	4 MB+1500%
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Conroe (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,238	1,235
Geekbench 6 Single	352	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	636	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2950M uses the PGA946 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Duo E6420 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 2950M versus 1066 on the Core 2 Duo E6420 — the Core 2 Duo E6420 supports 198.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2950M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM87,HM86 (Celeron 2950M) and P35,G31,G33,P45 (Core 2 Duo E6420).

Feature	Celeron 2950M	Core 2 Duo E6420
Socket	PGA946	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	1066+35433%
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+209715100%	16
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 2950M) vs true (Core 2 Duo E6420). The Celeron 2950M includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Haswell)), while the Core 2 Duo E6420 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2950M targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2950M rivals Pentium 2020M; Core 2 Duo E6420 rivals Athlon 64 X2 5400+.