Celeron M 900 vs Core 2 Quad Q6700

Celeron M 900

1 Cores1 Thrd1 WWMax: 2.2 GHz2009

Core 2 Quad Q6700

4 Cores4 Thrd95 WWMax: 2.67 GHz2007

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Celeron M 900

1 / 1

2,101

+0.4%

2,092

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 M 900 is positioned at rank 797 and the Core 2 Quad Q6700 is on rank 1079, so the Celeron M 900 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 M 900

#785

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

1201%

#786

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

1183%

#787

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

1086%

#788

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

1081%

#789

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

1072%

#791

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

1035%

#792

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

992%

#793

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

991%

#794

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

964%

#797

Celeron M 900

MSRP: $86|Avg: $10

100%

#799

Celeron B815

MSRP: $86|Avg: $15

100%

#801

Celeron B810

MSRP: $86|Avg: $86

100%

#803

Core i7-1365UE

MSRP: $429|Avg: $429

99%

#805

3020e

MSRP: $100|Avg: $25

98%

#809

Athlon II M320

MSRP: $75|Avg: $15

98%

#810

Celeron B800

MSRP: $80|Avg: $5

98%

#811

Celeron B710

MSRP: $86|Avg: $10

98%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Quad Q6700

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

78915%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

74567%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

54142%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

16311%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

12920%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

11302%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

6473%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

6389%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

5817%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

5817%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

5752%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

5596%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

5518%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

5496%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

5446%

#1079

Core 2 Quad Q6700

MSRP: $530|Avg: $50

100%

#1080

Athlon 64 2600+

MSRP: $100|Avg: $5

99%

#1081

Celeron 2.20

MSRP: $79|Avg: $15

98%

#1082

Athlon 64 X2 5200+

MSRP: $420|Avg: $15

91%

#1083

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

MSRP: $328|Avg: $10

91%

#1084

Core i7-975

MSRP: $999|Avg: $50

89%

#1085

Athlon XP 2600+

MSRP: $98|Avg: $10

88%

#1086

Core i7-965

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $40

87%

#1087

Athlon 64 FX-74

MSRP: $499|Avg: $50

84%

#1088

Athlon 64 2000+

MSRP: $100|Avg: $20

84%

#1089

Core 2 Extreme QX9770

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $1399

84%

#1090

Athlon 64 X2 5600+

MSRP: $505|Avg: $15

84%

#1091

Athlon 64 X2 5400+

MSRP: $485|Avg: $78

83%

#1092

Celeron 2.30

MSRP: $100|Avg: $10

82%

#1093

Phenom X4 9450e

MSRP: $450|Avg: $430

82%

#1094

Athlon 64 X2 3800+

MSRP: $354|Avg: $20

78%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The Core 2 Quad Q6700 leads in gaming performance. However, the Celeron M 900 is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 0.4% greater multi-core processing power.

Insight	Celeron M 900	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	✅ Better multi-core power	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price	✅ More affordable ($10)	⚠️ Higher cost ($50)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Kentsfield (2007) / 65 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Celeron M 900 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 80% cheaper ($10 vs $50) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Celeron M 900	Core 2 Quad Q6700
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+402%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($10)	⚠️ Higher cost ($50)

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 M 900 Benchmark Check

Core 2 Quad Q6700 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron M 900 and Core 2 Quad Q6700

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	—	❌
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

The Celeron M 900 launched at $86 MSRP, while the Core 2 Quad Q6700 debuted at $530. At current prices ($10 vs $50), the Celeron M 900 is $40 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron M 900 delivers 210.1 pts/$ vs 41.8 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q6700 — making the Celeron M 900 the 133.6% better value option.