CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 955

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores
Core2 Quad Q6600
6.1
Phenom II X4 955
6.4
Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance
Core2 Quad Q6600
6.9
Phenom II X4 955
7.4
Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?
Core2 Quad Q6600
10.0
Phenom II X4 955
10.0
overclock popularity

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?
Core2 Quad Q6600
8.2
Phenom II X4 955
6.9
Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value
Core2 Quad Q6600
6.7
Phenom II X4 955
7.0

Winner
AMD Phenom II X4 955 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Phenom II X4 955  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

Intel Core2 Quad Q6600

Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
Front view of AMD Phenom II X4 955

AMD Phenom II X4 955

CPUBoss Winner
Join the discussion

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 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 9.22 pt/$ vs 5.58 pt/$ More than 65% better performance per dollar
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 Phenom II X4 955

Reasons to consider the
AMD Phenom II X4 955

Report a correction
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 1,124 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 4,021 vs 2,990 Around 35% better PassMark score
Better 3DMark11 physics score 3,900 vs 2,910 Around 35% better 3DMark11 physics 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

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Phenom II X4 955

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core2 Quad Q6600
4,173
Phenom II X4 955
5,650
browser.primatelabs.com

x264 HD 4.0

Core2 Quad Q6600
47.9 fps
Phenom II X4 955
65.08 fps

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core2 Quad Q6600
2,910
Phenom II X4 955
3,900
Core2 Quad Q6600 Phenom II X4 955 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core2 Quad Q6600
9,681
Phenom II X4 955
13,242
Core2 Quad Q6600 Phenom II X4 955 @ anandtech.com

sysmark 2007 (overall)

Core2 Quad Q6600
170
Phenom II X4 955
195
Core2 Quad Q6600 Phenom II X4 955 @ anandtech.com

Passmark

Core2 Quad Q6600
2,990
Phenom II X4 955
4,021
cpubenchmark.net

Reviews Word on the street

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs Phenom II X4 955 
8.0
read review
8.0
read review
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
9.4
read review
8.7
read review
Unfortunately because it is old and there have been many new releases, 1366 1156, 1155 and now 2011, it is quite hard to recommend it, however if you do own one already I would always say don't get rid of it, keep it as a backup rig, this was truly one of those chips that could take a lot.
Core2 Quad Q6600

Overall
8.9 Out of 10
8.8 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

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss