No mater how much I google for it, I don't find any comparison of the power consumption (temperature) of Core 2 Duo E6300 and some of the slowest Cedar Mill (65nm) Celerons, like a Celeron D352 (3.2 GHz). Does a E6300 consumes significantly less in idle? And during single-threaded full utilization? Any concrete test results maybe? Does E6300 consume less at all? Don't laugh, after all that Celeron is a lowest-end CPU... nobody has cared to compare them?

Hehe. I didn't expect to be answering a question on my first post.

Have you tried Intel.com itself?

Intel® Core™2 Duo Desktop Processor E6300 specifications
http://processorfinder.intel.com/detail ... spec=sl9sa

This shows 61.4C maximum thermal spec

Intel® Celeron® D Processor 352
http://processorfinder.intel.com/detail ... Spec=SL96P

This shows 69.2C maximum thermal spec

The processor finder on Intel.com
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Default.aspx

Bookmark the processor finder. It can be very helpful on purchases.

"Thermal Specification: The thermal specification shown is the maximum case temperature at the maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) value for that processor. It is measured at the geometric center on the topside of the processor integrated heat spreader. For processors without integrated heat spreaders such as mobile processors, the thermal specification is referred to as the junction temperature (Tj). The maximum junction temperature is defined by an activation of the processor Intel® Thermal Monitor. The Intel Thermal Monitor’s automatic mode is used to indicate that the maximum TJ has been reached."


It would not surprise me at all that Core 2 is lower thermally spec'ed. The chip architecture had its origins in the mobility sector.

The last place where I used to find useful detailed information about a product is the Web page of the manufacturer/brander. This was not an exception. That temperature unfortunately doesn't say much about the question. I think that it is the highest temperature where the CPU can safely work without becoming unstable (despite that the Intel page doesn't say this in this way). So the higher is the better, not the other way around, but of course one should keep the CPU much cooler than this limit, like under 60 C or like.

BTW, since then Intel has released a cooler 65 nm Celeron:
Celeron D 347 (3.06 GHz, 512K). That has 69.2W TDP. Unfortunately, that says no much about the real-world power consumption. For example, how much is idle consumption? A damn important data. You see, they won't tell you. Manufacturers don't like you to decide based on technical facts, they rather want you depend on their PR blah-blah when you make decisions. I would punish this behavior... so please take me to the leader of the World. Thank you!