Core 2 Duo T5670 vs Core i7-6600U

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 T5670 vs Core i7-6600U 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 T5670 vs Core i7-6600U: 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 T5670

2008

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 2W instead of 15W, a 13W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).

Core i7-6600U

2015

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,407 vs 3,440).
❌650% higher power demand at 15W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Duo T5670 better than Core i7-6600U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-6600U 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, Core 2 Duo T5670 pulls ahead with 1% better PassMark. Core i7-6600U also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Duo T5670 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Core 2 Duo T5670 still makes the most sense overall. Core 2 Duo T5670 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1% better PassMark.

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

Core i7-6600U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2008) and 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core 2 Duo T5670 vs Core i7-6600U Technical Specifications

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

Core 2 Duo T5670

The Core 2 Duo T5670 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Merom-2M (2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 3,440 points. Launch price was $249.

Core i7-6600U

The Core i7-6600U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1356. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 3,407 points. Launch price was $393.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 2 Duo T5670 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-6600U's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Core 2 Duo T5670 versus 3.4 GHz on the Core i7-6600U — a 61.5% clock advantage for the Core i7-6600U (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core 2 Duo T5670 uses the Merom-2M (2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Core i7-6600U uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo T5670 scores 3,440 against the Core i7-6600U's 3,407 — a 1% lead for the Core 2 Duo T5670. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Duo T5670 vs 4 MB on the Core i7-6600U.

Feature	Core 2 Duo T5670	Core i7-6600U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	3.4 GHz+89%
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	2.6 GHz+44%
L3 Cache	2 MB L2 Cache	4 MB+100%
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	512 kB
Process	65 nm	14 nm-78%
Architecture	Merom-2M (2008)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	3,440	3,407