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 B815 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 B815 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 B815

2012

Why buy it

✅+0% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $444 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $530 MSRP).
✅Delivers 516.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 3.9 PassMark/$ ($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

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core 2 Quad Q6700

2007

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,092 vs 2,093).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.9 vs 24.3 PassMark/$ ($530 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron B815 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B815 better than Core 2 Quad Q6700?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Quad Q6700 is ahead with a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron B815 pulls ahead with 0% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron B815 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron B815 is the better buy right now. Celeron B815 comes in $444 cheaper on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $530 MSRP, and it still gives you 0% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core 2 Quad Q6700 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 516.6% better value on MSRP (24.3 vs 3.9 PassMark/$), 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 B815 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2007) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron B815 vs Core 2 Quad Q6700 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron B815

The Celeron B815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2012 (13 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: 2,093 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 B815 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 B815 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 B815 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 uses Kentsfield (2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron B815 scores 2,093 against the Core 2 Quad Q6700's 2,092 — a 0% lead for the Celeron B815. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B815 vs 0 kB on the Core 2 Quad Q6700.

Feature	Celeron B815	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	2,093	2,092

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron B815 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 B815 versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — the Celeron B815 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron B815 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 B815) vs 0 (Core 2 Quad Q6700) — the Celeron B815 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B815) and P45,G45 (Core 2 Quad Q6700).

Feature	Celeron B815	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 B815 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B815 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B815 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Celeron B815	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 B815 was priced at $86, while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 came in at $530. On launch pricing ($86 vs $530), Celeron B815 was $444 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron B815 delivers 24.3 pts/$ vs 3.9 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — making the Celeron B815 the 144.2% better value option.

Feature	Celeron B815	Core 2 Quad Q6700
MSRP	$86-84%	$530
Performance per Dollar	24.3+523%	3.9
Release Date	2012	2007

Search Celeron B815 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.