Celeron M 900 vs Core 2 Quad Q6700

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 M 900 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 M 900 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 M 900

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $444 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $530 MSRP).
✅Delivers 518.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.4 vs 3.9 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $530 MSRP).
✅Draws 1W instead of 95W, a 94W reduction.

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 2,101).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.9 vs 24.4 PassMark/$ ($530 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
❌9400% higher power demand at 95W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron M 900 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 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M 900 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M 900 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron M 900 is the better buy right now. Celeron M 900 comes in $444 cheaper on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $530 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core 2 Quad Q6700 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 518.9% better value on MSRP (24.4 vs 3.9 PassMark/$), 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 M 900 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2007) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron M 900 vs Core 2 Quad Q6700 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron M 900

The Celeron M 900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,101 points. Launch price was $70.

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 M 900 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q6700 has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron M 900 versus 2.67 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — a 19.3% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q6700. The Celeron M 900 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 uses Kentsfield (2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M 900 scores 2,101 against the Core 2 Quad Q6700's 2,092 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron M 900.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	4 / 4+300%
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	2.67 GHz+21%
Base Clock	—	2.66 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	8 MB (total)+700%
Process	45 nm-31%	65 nm
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Kentsfield (2007)
PassMark	2,101	2,092

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M 900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Socket	PGA478	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	—	8 GB
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron M 900) / VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q6700).

Feature	Celeron M 900	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron M 900 was priced at $86, while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 came in at $530. On launch pricing ($86 vs $530), Celeron M 900 was $444 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron M 900 delivers 24.4 pts/$ vs 3.9 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — making the Celeron M 900 the 144.4% better value option.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Core 2 Quad Q6700
MSRP	$86-84%	$530
Performance per Dollar	24.4+526%	3.9
Release Date	2009	2007

Search Celeron M 900 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.