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 6305 vs Core 2 Quad Q6700 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 6305 vs Core 2 Quad Q6700: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 6305

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $423 less on MSRP ($107 MSRP vs $530 MSRP).
✅Delivers 391.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.4 vs 3.9 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $530 MSRP).
✅Draws 3W instead of 95W, a 93W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics for 11th Gen, while Core 2 Quad Q6700 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,077 vs 2,092).

Core 2 Quad Q6700

2007

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.9 vs 19.4 PassMark/$ ($530 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
❌3700% higher power demand at 95W vs 2.5W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 6305 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Quad Q6700 better than Celeron 6305?

Yes. Core 2 Quad Q6700 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core 2 Quad Q6700 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Quad Q6700 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core 2 Quad Q6700 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Core 2 Quad Q6700 comes in 395.3% more expensive on MSRP at $530 MSRP versus $107 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 6305 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 2.5% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron 6305 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2007). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 6305 vs Core 2 Quad Q6700 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 6305

The Celeron 6305 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Tiger Lake-U (2020−2021) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 2.5 MB. Built on 10 nm SuperFin process technology. Socket: FCBGA1449. Thermal design power (TDP): 2.5 MB + 4 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 2,077 points. Launch price was $69.

Core 2 Quad Q6700

The Core 2 Quad Q6700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Kentsfield (2007) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.66 GHz, with boost up to 2.67 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 8 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 105 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,092 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 6305 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q6700 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 6305 versus 2.67 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — a 38.9% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q6700. The Celeron 6305 uses the Tiger Lake-U (2020−2021) architecture (10 nm SuperFin), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 uses Kentsfield (2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 6305 scores 2,077 against the Core 2 Quad Q6700's 2,092 — a 0.7% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q6700. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Celeron 6305 vs 0 kB on the Core 2 Quad Q6700.

Feature	Celeron 6305	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	2.67 GHz+48%
Base Clock	—	2.66 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2.5 MB	8 MB (total)+220%
Process	10 nm SuperFin-85%	65 nm
Architecture	Tiger Lake-U (2020−2021)	Kentsfield (2007)
PassMark	2,077	2,092
Geekbench 6 Single	744	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,236	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 6305 uses the FCBGA1449 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-3200 on the Celeron 6305 versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — the Celeron 6305 supports 300% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 6305 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron 6305) vs 0 (Core 2 Quad Q6700) — the Celeron 6305 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Tiger Lake-U (Celeron 6305) and P45,G45 (Core 2 Quad Q6700).

Feature	Celeron 6305	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Socket	FCBGA1449	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+264%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200+300%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+700%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 6305) vs VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q6700). The Celeron 6305 includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics for 11th Gen), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 6305 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 6305 rivals Pentium Gold 7505.

Feature	Celeron 6305	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics for 11th Gen	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 6305 was priced at $107, while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 came in at $530. On launch pricing ($107 vs $530), Celeron 6305 was $423 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 6305 delivers 19.4 pts/$ vs 3.9 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — making the Celeron 6305 the 132.4% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 6305	Core 2 Quad Q6700
MSRP	$107-80%	$530
Performance per Dollar	19.4+397%	3.9
Release Date	2020	2007

Search Celeron 6305 on Amazon

Search Core 2 Quad Q6700 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.