OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i3 6006U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£350PassMark benchmark result:2275N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1356TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i3 6006U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.0

Overall score

Score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

90%

4.0

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 89% of processors
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 86% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £350

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3 6006U

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

4.0
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i3 6006U has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

60%

4.0

Overall score

40%

8.7

Price

5.4
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1356
CPU socket
FCBGA1356
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1356 CPU socket, which is older than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.0 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 93.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
3 MB
L3 cache
3 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 3 MB which is smaller than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 5.6% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
L1 cache
128 KB
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 77.7% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 75.5% of processors and equal to 8.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
?
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
â–² Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
This processor supports VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 82.1% of processors and equal to 3.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 7.5 W
Show more

Intel Core i3 6006U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.38x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,311.44
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,311.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,311.44 vs 387.66
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 44.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    99 mm²
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    99 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 3.38x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,311.44
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,311.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,311.44 vs 387.66
  • 44.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    99 mm²
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    99 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 78.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,275
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,275 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,275 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 54.2% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,146
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,146 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,146 vs 2,500
  • 72.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,325
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,325 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,325 vs 4,829
  • 56.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    643
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (643 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    643 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 2.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 80% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 22% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3 6006U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.38 vs 6.6).
    5.38 vs 6.56
  • 40% more expensive
    Intel Core i3 6006U is more expensive than the average processor (£350 vs £250).
    £350 vs £250
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1356
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1356 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1356 vs FP4
  • 4 years older release date
    Release date
    2016
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    November 2016
    2016 vs 2020
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 78.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,275
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,275 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,275 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 54.2% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,146
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,146 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,146 vs 2,500
  • 72.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,325
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,325 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,325 vs 4,829
  • 56.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    643
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (643 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    643 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 2.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • No Turbo Boost
    Turbo Boost version
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    20
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 vs 28
  • 80% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    128 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 62.5% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    3 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    3 MB vs 8 MB
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 71.7% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.4 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Skylake
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
    Skylake vs Kaby Lake
  • 25.5% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    34.1 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    34.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 27.3% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,133 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2133 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L/DDR4
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    VC-1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-6006U @ 2.00GHz - CPU Benchmarks
N
notebookcheck.net
02/04/2017
Summary of the review
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C (6006U, HD) Laptop Review
N
notebookcheck.net
19/03/2018
Summary of the review
HP 250 G6 (i3-6006U, SSD, FHD) Laptop Review
N
notebookcheck.net
15/03/2018
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire 3 (i3-6006U, HD520) Laptop Review
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
28/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-6006U - CPU UserBenchmarks
N
notebookcheck.net
01/07/2023
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4950HQ vs Intel Core i3-6006U (Technical Analysis) Suggested Next Step Would you like a breakdown of the performance benchmarks (such as...
N
notebookcheck.com
05/03/2018
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire 3 (i3-6006U, HD 520) Laptop Review
(Translated)Show original
I
itjustgood.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Refurbished Dell Latitude 3380 Laptop - i3-6006U - 8GB RAM
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-6006U | LaptopMedia
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
01/12/2016
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-6006U - Specifications and Benchmark Tests
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
17/06/2017
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire ES1-572-31N3 - Product Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
01/08/2017
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide - August 2017
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i3 6006U

  • Energy efficient with a low 15W TDP, making it ideal for laptop battery life
  • Cost-effective 'entry-level' option for users on a tight budget
  • Capable of handling basic daily tasks like office work, web browsing, and 1080p video playback
  • Performance can be significantly improved for multitasking by adding an SSD and more RAM
  • Includes Hyper-Threading technology, allowing its 2 physical cores to handle 4 threads

What we don't like about Intel Core i3 6006U

  • Lacks Intel Turbo Boost technology, meaning it is locked at a relatively low 2.0 GHz clock speed
  • Not officially supported for Windows 11, which may lead to performance issues or lack of security updates
  • Poor performance in modern gaming or demanding software like high-end video editing
  • Relatively weak single-core performance compared to newer i3 generations or i5/i7 models
  • Now considered a 'Legacy' or discontinued product, limiting its future-proofing

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-6006U is a 6th-generation Skylake dual-core processor designed for ultra-low power laptops, featuring 4 threads via Hyper-Threading and a fixed base frequency of 2.00 GHz. It includes 3MB of Intel Smart Cache, supports up to 32GB of DDR4-2133/LPDDR3-1866 memory, and integrates Intel HD Graphics 520 with 4K support at 60Hz. Its primary advantages include a low 15W TDP for better battery efficiency and suitability for basic daily tasks like web browsing and office productivity. However, notable drawbacks include the lack of Intel Turbo Boost technology, which limits its peak performance, and the fact that it is not officially supported by Windows 11.

Compare Intel Core i3 6006U with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i3 6006U and other processors

No results found