CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E6700 vs 5050e among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Duo E6700

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo E6700

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 1 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better PassMark score 1,703 vs 1,347 More than 25% better PassMark score
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 995 vs 781 More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,396 vs 1,923 Around 25% better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.35 GHz vs 3.18 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.6 GHz vs 2.6 GHz Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD Athlon X2 5050e

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon X2 5050e

Report a correction
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 78 °C vs 60.1 °C Around 30% higher Maximum operating temperature
Significantly lower typical power consumption 36.56W vs 52.81W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 10.84 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 39.42 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Oct, 2008 vs Jul, 2006 Release date over 2 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E6700 vs Athlon X2 5050e

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E6700
113,800 MB/s
Athlon X2 5050e
70,550 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Duo E6700  vs
Athlon X2 5050e 
Clock speed 2.66 GHz 2.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775
AM2

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 65W 45W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 10.84 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 39.42 $/year
Performance per watt 1.69 pt/W 1.75 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 36.56W

details

Core2 Duo E6700  vs
Athlon X2 5050e 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 4 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.5V 1 - 1.25V
Operating temperature Unknown - 60.1°C Unknown - 78°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.35 GHz 3.18 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.6 GHz 2.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.35 GHz 3.18 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
Intel Core2 Duo E6700
Report a correction
AMD Athlon X2 5050e
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus