CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 4300

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

overclock popularity

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
AMD FX 4300 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 4300  based on its .

See full details

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
Front view of AMD FX 4300

AMD FX 4300

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q6600

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 4 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Front view of AMD FX 4300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 4300

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 32 nms vs 65 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much higher clock speed 3.8 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 60% higher clock speed
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,420 vs 921 Around 55% better PassMark (Single core) score
Marginally newer Oct, 2012 vs Jan, 2007 Release date over 5 years later
Better 3DMark11 physics score 6,610 vs 2,910 More than 2.2x better 3DMark11 physics score
Better PassMark score 4,713 vs 2,987 Around 60% better PassMark score
Slightly lower typical power consumption 77.19W vs 85.31W Around 10% lower typical power consumption
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 4,114 vs 2,778 Around 50% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Slightly better geekbench (32-bit) score 5,477 vs 4,181 More than 30% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better performance per watt 6.6 pt/W vs 4.28 pt/W Around 55% better performance per watt
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 12,857 vs 9,681 Around 35% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Slightly lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year vs 91.98 $/year Around 10% lower annual commercial energy cost
Slightly lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year vs 25.29 $/year Around 10% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs FX 4300

GeekBench (32-bit)

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core2 Quad Q6600 FX 4300 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

FX 4300
12,857
Core2 Quad Q6600 FX 4300 @ anandtech.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

Core2 Quad Q6600 FX 4300 @ anandtech.com

Passmark (Single Core)

Reviews Word on the street

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs FX 4300 

8.0
5.0
But in terms of a re-encode/compress test and Stalker at 800 x 600, and it's quite apparent what two extra cores can do.
Core2 Quad Q6600

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs
FX 4300 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 3.8 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 775
AM3+
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

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

details

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs
FX 4300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 8 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclock popularity 278 7

power consumption

TDP 105W 95W
Annual home energy cost 25.29 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 91.98 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 4.28 pt/W 6.6 pt/W
Typical power consumption 85.31W 77.19W
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
Report a correction
AMD FX 4300
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus