Winner
AMD Phenom II X4 955
CPUBoss recommends the AMD Phenom II X4 955 based on its .
See full details Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs AMD Phenom II X4 955 |
Released January, 2007
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
6.7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
 | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core |
| | Significantly better performance per dollar 9.21 pt/$ | | Lower typical power consumption 85.31W |
by Tech Radar (Aug, 2007)In real terms, quad-threaded applications are thin on the ground and will be until at least this winter.
VS
Released November, 2009
AMD Phenom II X4 955
- 3.2 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD Phenom II X4 955
| | Newer manufacturing process 45 nms | | Significantly higher clock speed 3.2 GHz |
| | Much better SysMark 2007 video creation score 243 | | Significantly better SysMark 2007 overall score 195 |
by Legit Reviews (May, 2009)Legit Bottom Line: The AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition is the fastest desktop processor in AMD's aresnal and rightly so, as it supports socket AM3 technology and a 3.2GHz clock frequency.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 955
Performance | |
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) | |
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 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | AMD Phenom II X4 955CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 2 MB | 4x 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 | 0.5 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better performance per dollar | 9.21 pt/$ | vs | 5.89 pt/$ | More than 55% better performance per dollar | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 85.31W | vs | 101.56W | More than 15% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 25.29 $/year | vs | 30.11 $/year | More than 15% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 91.98 $/year | vs | 109.5 $/year | More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Newer manufacturing process | 45 nms | vs | 65 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 3.2 GHz | vs | 2.4 GHz | Around 35% higher clock speed | |||
| Much better SysMark 2007 video creation score | 243 | vs | 209 | More than 15% better SysMark 2007 video creation score | |||
| Significantly better SysMark 2007 overall score | 195 | vs | 170 | Around 15% better SysMark 2007 overall score | |||
| Significantly better SysMark 2007 3D score | 184 | vs | 150 | Around 25% better SysMark 2007 3D score | |||
| Newer | Nov, 2009 | vs | Jan, 2007 | Release date over 2 years later | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,123 | vs | 922 | More than 20% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Better SysMark 2007 productivity score | 187 | vs | 172 | Around 10% better SysMark 2007 productivity score | |||
| Better PassMark score | 4,019 | vs | 2,990 | Around 35% better PassMark score | |||
| Better 3DMark11 physics score | 3,900 | vs | 2,910 | Around 35% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Slightly better geekbench (64-bit) score | 5,664 | vs | 4,514 | More than 25% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | 3,675 | vs | 2,778 | More than 30% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 13,242 | vs | 9,681 | More than 35% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Phenom II X4 955
GeekBench (32-bit)
x264 HD 4.0
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
Cinebench R10 32-Bit
sysmark 2007 (overall)
Passmark
Reviews Word on the street
| Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Phenom II X4 955 | ||
 | Core2 Quad Q6600 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Core2 Quad Q6600 | |||
Overall | Out of 10 | Out of 10 | ||
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Phenom II X4 955 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| AM3 | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | No | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| 3DNow! | |||
| 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 | |
bus | |||
| Clock speed | 1,066 MHz | 2,000 MHz | |
details | Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Phenom II X4 955 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nms | 45 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.5V | 0.88 - 1.5V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 62.2°C | Unknown - 62°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 278 | 259 | |
| Overclock review score | 5 | 4 | |
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 | 4.21 pt/W | 4.24 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 85.31W | 101.56W | |
 Intel Core2 Quad Q6600  Report a correction |  AMD Phenom II X4 955 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $48 | $120 | |
| Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i3 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $48 | $18 | |
| Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Duo E8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $48 | $241 | |
| Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i5 3570K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $48 | $70 | |
| Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Pentium G3258 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $48 | $65 | |
| Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Q8200 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $48 | $60 | |
| Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Q8400 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $90 | $110 | |
| AMD Phenom II X4 955 vs FX 6300 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $340 | $272 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $329 | $383 | |
| Intel Core i7 4790K vs 5820K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $329 | $240 | |
| Intel Core i7 4790K vs i5 4690K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| Intel Core i3 4005U vs Pentium N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $85 | $161 | |
| Intel Core i3 3110M vs Pentium N3530 | ||
 | VS | |
| $149 | $240 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 4690K | ||
