CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 8320 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

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

5.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD FX 8320 

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

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

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 higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 45% higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Jan, 2007 Release date over 5 years later
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.64 GHz vs 3.52 GHz More than 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly better geekbench 2 (64-bit) score 10,594 vs 4,541 More than 2.2x better geekbench 2 (64-bit) score
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 2,066 vs 1,306 Around 60% better geekbench 3 single core score
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Significantly better performance per watt 7.92 pt/W vs 1.44 pt/W More than 5.5x better performance per watt
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 10,352 vs 4,490 More than 2.2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 9,798 vs 4,161 More than 2.2x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 20,870 vs 9,681 Around 2.2x better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 3,987 vs 2,778 Around 45% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.77 GHz vs 3.7 GHz Around 30% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs FX 8320

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
10,352

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Quad Q6600
102,800 MB/s
FX 8320
2,320,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
10,594

GeekBench

FX 8320
11,631

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs
FX 8320 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 775
AM3+

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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

details

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
Operating temperature Unknown - 62.2°C Unknown - 61.1°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 278 63
Overclocked clock speed 3.52 GHz 4.64 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.7 GHz 4.77 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.52 GHz 4.64 GHz

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 1.44 pt/W 7.92 pt/W
Typical power consumption 85.31W 101.56W

bus

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

Comments

comments powered by Disqus