Core i7-6498DU 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 i7-6498DU 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 i7-6498DU 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 i7-6498DU

2015

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,372 vs 3,407).

Core i7-6600U

2015

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-6600U better than Core i7-6498DU?

Yes. Core i7-6600U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.8% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-6600U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.8% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-6600U is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i7-6600U still makes the most sense overall. Core i7-6600U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.8% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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 more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-6498DU vs Core i7-6600U Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-6498DU

The Core i7-6498DU 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 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2133, LPDDR3-1866, DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 3,372 points. Launch price was $393.

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

Both the Core i7-6498DU and Core i7-6600U share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Core i7-6498DU versus 3.4 GHz on the Core i7-6600U — a 9.2% clock advantage for the Core i7-6600U (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). Both are built on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture using a 14 nm process. In PassMark, the Core i7-6498DU scores 3,372 against the Core i7-6600U's 3,407 — a 1% lead for the Core i7-6600U. Both processors carry 4 MB of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i7-6498DU	Core i7-6600U
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz	3.4 GHz+10%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.6 GHz+4%
L3 Cache	4 MB	4 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Skylake (2015−2016)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	3,372	3,407+1%