Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i3 3220 |
Released January, 2007
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
6.6 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 |
| | More cores 4 |
VS
Released September, 2012
Intel Core i3 3220
- 3.3 GHz
- Dual core
7.6 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core i3 3220
| | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms | | Significantly higher clock speed 3.3 GHz |
| | Is hyperthreaded Yes | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
The Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 versus the Intel Core i3 3220: a match up across generations, wherein the i3 is newer by at least 5 years. Will the older Q6600 stand a chance? Let's take a closer look.
The older Q6600 is a quad core with a base speed of 2.4GHz. Interestingly enough, it has quite a large 8MB L2 cache, but which isn't hyperthreaded. It has an older manufacturing process at 65nms, and a high TDP of 105W.
On the other hand, the 3220 is a dual core clocked at higher 3.3GHz, which is hyperthreaded. It only has 1MB of L2 cache, but is equipped with a much newer L3 cache of 3MB. It's part of Intel's 22nms manufacturing process, and has a low TDP of 55W.
Surprisingly, the dual core 3220 trumped the quad core Q6600 in all benchmarks, most notably with a 3,000 point lead in the 64-bit Geekbench test, and a 2,000 point lead in PassMark. This comparison shows that the newer processors are indeed a worthy upgrade. In conclusion, this match up between generations leaves only one winner worthy of recommendation: chuck the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in favor of the newer Intel Core i3 3220.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 3220
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| 3DMark06 (CPU), Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more | |
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 | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 16x 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 | 0.25 MB/core | 8x more l2 cache per core | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| |||||||
| Newer manufacturing process | 22 nms | vs | 65 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 3.3 GHz | vs | 2.4 GHz | Around 40% higher clock speed | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Much better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,764 | vs | 919 | More than 90% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Significantly lower typical power consumption | 44.69W | vs | 85.31W | Around 50% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Marginally newer | Sep, 2012 | vs | Jan, 2007 | Release date over 5 years later | |||
| Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | 5,814 | vs | 2,778 | More than 2x better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | |||
| Better geekbench (64-bit) score | 8,814 | vs | 4,618 | More than 90% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 10.62 pt/W | vs | 4.48 pt/W | More than 2.2x better performance per watt | |||
| Better PassMark score | 4,229 | vs | 2,973 | More than 40% better PassMark score | |||
| Higher Maximum Operating Temperature | 65.3 °C | vs | 62.2 °C | Around 5% higher Maximum Operating Temperature | |||
| Better 3DMark11 physics score | 4,030 | vs | 2,910 | Around 40% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Slightly better 3DMark06 CPU score | 4,019 | vs | 3,546.5 | Around 15% better 3DMark06 CPU score | |||
| Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 48.18 $/year | vs | 91.98 $/year | Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 12,548 | vs | 9,681 | Around 30% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 13.25 $/year | vs | 25.29 $/year | Around 50% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i3 3220
GeekBench (32-bit)
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
3D Mark 06 (CPU)
Cinebench R10 32-Bit
Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)
Passmark
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Core i3 3220 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.3 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| LGA 1155 | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | No | Yes | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 2500 | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 3 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 650 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,050 MHz | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
details | Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Core i3 3220 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 0.5 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nms | 22 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 9 | 33 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 62.2°C | Unknown - 65.3°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 278 | 50 | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 105W | 55W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 25.29 $/year | 13.25 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 91.98 $/year | 48.18 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 4.48 pt/W | 10.62 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 85.31W | 44.69W | |
 Intel Core2 Quad Q6600  Report a correction |  Intel Core i3 3220 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $125 | ||
| AMD E1 2500 vs Intel Core i3 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $120 | $125 | |
| AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i3 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $64 | $125 | |
| Intel Pentium G2020 vs Core i3 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | ||
| AMD A6 5200 vs Intel Core i3 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | $125 | |
| Intel Core i3 4130 vs 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $70 | $125 | |
| Intel Pentium G3220 vs Core i3 3220 | ||
 | VS | |
| $94 | $125 | |
| Intel Pentium J2900 vs Core i3 3220 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $340 | ||
| AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Core i7 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $340 | $240 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs i5 4670K | ||
 | VS | |
| $332 | $340 | |
| Intel Core I7 4820k vs i7 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $240 | $200 | |
| Intel Core i5 4670K vs AMD FX 8350 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $393 | $281 | |
| Intel Core i7 4500U vs i5 4200U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs 3230M | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | $378 | |
| Intel Core i7 4700MQ vs 4700HQ | ||
