CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 8320


Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R10 32-bit, PassMark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

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


How much speed can you get out of the processor?

overclock popularity


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

AMD FX 8320 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8320  based on its performance, single-core performance and value.

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!
Front view of AMD FX 8320

AMD FX 8320

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 per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Lower typical power consumption 85.31W vs 101.56W More than 15% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual commercial energy cost 91.98 $/year vs 109.5 $/year More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 25.29 $/year vs 30.11 $/year More than 15% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better 3DMark11 physics score 6,200 vs 2,910 Around 2.2x better 3DMark11 physics score
Significantly higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 45% higher clock speed
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Significantly better PassMark score 8,183 vs 2,993 Around 2.8x better PassMark score
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Jan, 2007 Release date over 5 years later
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,402 vs 922 More than 50% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 9,798 vs 4,161 More than 2.2x better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 20,870 vs 9,681 Around 2.2x better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Better performance per dollar 5.7 pt/$ vs 4.49 pt/$ More than 25% better performance per dollar
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 3,987 vs 2,778 Around 45% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Better performance per watt 6.39 pt/W vs 4.1 pt/W More than 55% better performance per watt

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs FX 8320

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

FX 8320

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

PassMark Data courtesy PassMark

PassMark (Single Core) Data courtesy PassMark

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core2 Quad Q6600  vs
FX 8320 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 775


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 105W 125W
Annual home energy cost 25.29 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 91.98 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 4.1 pt/W 6.39 pt/W
Typical power consumption 85.31W 101.56W


Core2 Quad Q6600  vs
FX 8320 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L2 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 582,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 20
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.5V 0.8 - 1.43V


Overclock popularity 278 63

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


Clock speed 1,066 MHz 2,600 MHz
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
Report a correction
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction


comments powered by Disqus