
Celeron P4600

Pentium D 960
Celeron P4600 vs Pentium D 960 Performance Spectrum
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.
Celeron P4600 vs Pentium D 960 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Celeron P4600 vs Pentium D 960: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Celeron P4600
2010Why buy it
- ✅Costs $437 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $523 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 483.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 11.2 vs 1.9 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $523 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 130W, a 95W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Westmere), while Pentium D 960 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Pentium D 960 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (965 vs 1,005).
Pentium D 960
2006Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.9 vs 11.2 PassMark/$ ($523 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
- ❌271.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 35W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron P4600 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Pentium D 960 better than Celeron P4600?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Celeron P4600 vs Pentium D 960 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron P4600
The Celeron P4600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 0.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 965 points. Launch price was $69.

Pentium D 960
The Pentium D 960 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 April 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $523.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron P4600 and Pentium D 960 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 0.1 GHz on the Celeron P4600 versus 3.6 GHz on the Pentium D 960 — a 189.2% clock advantage for the Pentium D 960 (base: 2 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Celeron P4600 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Pentium D 960 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron P4600 scores 965 against the Pentium D 960's 1,005 — a 4.1% lead for the Pentium D 960. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron P4600 vs 0 kB on the Pentium D 960.
| Feature | Celeron P4600 | Pentium D 960 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 0.1 GHz | 3.6 GHz+3500% |
| Base Clock | 2 GHz | 3.6 GHz+80% |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 2 MB (total)+300% |
| Process | 32 nm-51% | 65 nm |
| Architecture | Westmere (2010−2011) | NetBurst (2000−2006) |
| PassMark | 965 | 1,005+4% |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron P4600 uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Pentium D 960 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Celeron P4600 | Pentium D 960 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA988 | LGA775 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | 1066 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: true (Celeron P4600) / not specified (Pentium D 960). The Celeron P4600 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Westmere)), while the Pentium D 960 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron P4600 rivals Pentium P6000.
| Feature | Celeron P4600 | Pentium D 960 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | — |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics (Westmere) | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | true | — |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Celeron P4600 was priced at $86, while the Pentium D 960 came in at $523. On launch pricing ($86 vs $523), Celeron P4600 was $437 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron P4600 delivers 11.2 pts/$ vs 1.9 pts/$ for the Pentium D 960 — making the Celeron P4600 the 141.5% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron P4600 | Pentium D 960 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $86-84% | $523 |
| Performance per Dollar | 11.2+489% | 1.9 |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2006 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














