Core 2 Quad Q6700 vs Celeron M 900

Core 2 Quad Q6700

4 Cores4 Thrd95 WWMax: 2.67 GHz2007

Celeron M 900

1 Cores1 Thrd1 WWMax: 2.2 GHz2009

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core 2 Quad Q6700

4 / 4

2,092

0.0%

2,101

+0.4%

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 Core 2 Quad Q6700 is positioned at rank 1079 and the Celeron M 900 is on rank 797, 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 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 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 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	Core 2 Quad Q6700	Celeron M 900
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	⚠️ Higher cost ($50)	✅ More affordable ($10)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Kentsfield (2007) / 65 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 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	Core 2 Quad Q6700	Celeron M 900
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+402%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️ Higher cost ($50)	✅ More affordable ($10)

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.

Core 2 Quad Q6700 Benchmark Check

Celeron M 900 Benchmark Check

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

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

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.

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.

⚡

Processing Power

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

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

🧠

Memory & Platform

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

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q6700	Celeron M 900
Socket	LGA775	PGA478
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: VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q6700) / not specified (Celeron M 900).

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

💰

Value Analysis

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