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 B810 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 B810 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 B810

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $444 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $530 MSRP).
✅Delivers 516.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 3.9 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $530 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Core 2 Quad Q6700 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,091 vs 2,092).

Core 2 Quad Q6700

2007

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.9 vs 24.3 PassMark/$ ($530 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron B810 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Quad Q6700 better than Celeron B810?

Yes. Core 2 Quad Q6700 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0% 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 2.9% 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% 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 still the much better call for a fresh build. Core 2 Quad Q6700 comes in 516.3% more expensive on MSRP at $530 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron B810 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 516.0% better value on paper (24.3 vs 3.9 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

Celeron B810 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2007). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron B810 vs Core 2 Quad Q6700 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron B810

The Celeron B810 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,091 points. Launch price was $86.

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 B810 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 1.6 GHz on the Celeron B810 versus 2.67 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — a 50.1% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q6700 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.66 GHz). The Celeron B810 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 uses Kentsfield (2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron B810 scores 2,091 against the Core 2 Quad Q6700's 2,092 — a 0% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q6700. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B810 vs 0 kB on the Core 2 Quad Q6700.

Feature	Celeron B810	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.67 GHz+67%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.66 GHz+66%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+3100%	8 MB (total)
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Kentsfield (2007)
PassMark	2,091	2,092

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron B810 uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron B810 versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — the Celeron B810 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron B810 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron B810) vs 0 (Core 2 Quad Q6700) — the Celeron B810 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B810) and P45,G45 (Core 2 Quad Q6700).

Feature	Celeron B810	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Socket	PGA988	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+67%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. The Celeron B810 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B810 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B810 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Celeron B810	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron B810 was priced at $86, while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 came in at $530. On launch pricing ($86 vs $530), Celeron B810 was $444 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron B810 delivers 24.3 pts/$ vs 3.9 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — making the Celeron B810 the 144.1% better value option.

Feature	Celeron B810	Core 2 Quad Q6700
MSRP	$86-84%	$530
Performance per Dollar	24.3+523%	3.9
Release Date	2011	2007

Search Celeron B810 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.