Core 2 Duo E4600 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300

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.

Core 2 Duo E4600 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 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.

Core 2 Duo E4600 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core 2 Duo E4600

2007

Why buy it

✅Costs $129 less on MSRP ($133 MSRP vs $262 MSRP).
✅Delivers 95.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 9.3 vs 4.8 PassMark/$ ($133 MSRP vs $262 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,235 vs 1,247).
❌2066.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

2008

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 3W instead of 65W, a 62W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.8 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($262 MSRP vs $133 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Solo SU3300 better than Core 2 Duo E4600?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Duo E4600 is ahead with a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Solo SU3300 pulls ahead with 1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Solo SU3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core 2 Solo SU3300 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core 2 Solo SU3300 comes in 97.0% more expensive on MSRP at $262 MSRP versus $133 MSRP, and it still gives you 1% better PassMark. Core 2 Duo E4600 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2007 platform. Even with 95.1% better value on paper (9.3 vs 4.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Core 2 Solo SU3300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2007) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core 2 Duo E4600 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 Technical Specifications

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

Core 2 Duo E4600

The Core 2 Duo E4600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,235 points. Launch price was $249.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

The Core 2 Solo SU3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,247 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 2 Duo E4600 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Core 2 Duo E4600 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Core 2 Duo E4600 versus 1.2 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — a 66.7% clock advantage for the Core 2 Duo E4600. The Core 2 Duo E4600 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo E4600 scores 1,235 against the Core 2 Solo SU3300's 1,247 — a 1% lead for the Core 2 Solo SU3300.

Feature	Core 2 Duo E4600	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+100%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	2 MB	3 MB+50%
Process	65 nm	45 nm-31%
Architecture	Allendale (2006−2009)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,235	1,247

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Duo E4600 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-800 memory speed. The Core 2 Duo E4600 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core 2 Duo E4600) vs 1 (Core 2 Solo SU3300). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes.

Feature	Core 2 Duo E4600	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Socket	LGA775	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core 2 Duo E4600) / VT-x (Core 2 Solo SU3300). Primary use case: Core 2 Solo SU3300 targets Mobile.

Feature	Core 2 Duo E4600	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x
Target Use	—	Mobile

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core 2 Duo E4600 was priced at $133, while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 came in at $262. On launch pricing ($133 vs $262), Core 2 Duo E4600 was $129 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 2 Duo E4600 delivers 9.3 pts/$ vs 4.8 pts/$ for the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — making the Core 2 Duo E4600 the 64.5% better value option.

Feature	Core 2 Duo E4600	Core 2 Solo SU3300
MSRP	$133-49%	$262
Performance per Dollar	9.3+94%	4.8
Release Date	2007	2008

Search Core 2 Duo E4600 on Amazon

Search Core 2 Solo SU3300 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.