CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 3220


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)


How much speed can you get out of the processor?

overclock popularity


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?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

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 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
Better performance per dollar 7.18 pt/$ vs 4.55 pt/$ Around 60% better performance per dollar
Front view of Intel Core i3 3220

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 3220

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 nm 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
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Significantly lower typical power consumption 44.69W vs 85.31W Around 50% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,764 vs 922 More than 90% better PassMark (Single core) score
Newer Sep, 2012 vs Jan, 2007 Release date over 5 years later
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 5,814 vs 2,778 More than 2x better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Better performance per watt 9.74 pt/W vs 4.1 pt/W Around 2.5x better performance per watt
Better PassMark score 4,229 vs 2,993 More than 40% better PassMark score
Higher Maximum operating temperature 65.3 °C vs 62.2 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Slightly better 3DMark11 physics score 4,030 vs 2,910 Around 40% better 3DMark11 physics score
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year vs 91.98 $/year Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year vs 25.29 $/year Around 50% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i3 3220

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

PassMark Data courtesy PassMark

Specifications Full list of technical specs


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


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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 4.1 pt/W 9.74 pt/W
Typical power consumption 85.31W 44.69W


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 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 33
Operating temperature Unknown - 62.2°C Unknown - 65.3°C


Overclock popularity 278 50

integrated graphics

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


Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
Report a correction
Intel Core i3 3220
Report a correction


Showing 2 comments.
wut o.o
is video card is important to graphic user
comments powered by Disqus