0 Comments
| | Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i5 2500K |
Released January, 2007
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core |
| | Much better performance per dollar 7.14 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 January, 2011
Intel Core i5 2500K
- 3.3 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the Core i5 2500K
| | Newer manufacturing process 32 nms | | Much better SysMark 2007 overall score 265 |
| | Significantly higher clock speed 3.3 GHz | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
by PCMag (Apr, 2011)In the PCMark Vantage full-system performance test, the Core i5-2500K earned an overall score of 10,271—not at all far behind the Core i7-2600K's result of 10,368, and surprisingly close (all things considered) to the 10,970 we saw with the Core i7-970—Intel's lower-end six-core LGA1366 CPU.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 2500K
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Core2 Quad Q6600 6.9 Core i5 2500K 7.9 | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit), GeekBench (64-bit) and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Core2 Quad Q6600 7.9 Core i5 2500K 9.2 | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core), Passmark (Single Core) and x264 HD 4.0 (Pass 2) | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Core2 Quad Q6600 10.0 Core i5 2500K 10.0 | |
| overclock popularity | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Core2 Quad Q6600 8.3 Core i5 2500K 6.2 | |
| 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 | 1 MB | 8x 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 | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 7.14 pt/$ | vs | 2.62 pt/$ | Around 2.8x better performance per dollar | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 85.31W | vs | 112.55W | Around 25% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 25.29 $/year | vs | 41.29 $/year | Around 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 91.98 $/year | vs | 110.03 $/year | More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Newer manufacturing process | 32 nms | vs | 65 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much better SysMark 2007 overall score | 265 | vs | 170 | More than 55% better SysMark 2007 overall score | |||
| 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 | |||
| Much better SysMark 2007 3D score | 296 | vs | 150 | More than 95% better SysMark 2007 3D score | |||
| Much better SysMark 2007 productivity score | 273 | vs | 172 | Around 60% better SysMark 2007 productivity score | |||
| Much better SysMark 2007 video creation score | 251 | vs | 209 | More than 20% better SysMark 2007 video creation score | |||
| Much better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,863 | vs | 921 | More than 2x better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Much higher Maximum Operating Temperature | 72.6 °C | vs | 62.2 °C | More than 15% higher Maximum Operating Temperature | |||
| Significantly better geekbench (64-bit) score | 11,106 | vs | 4,539 | Around 2.5x better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Better PassMark score | 6,383 | vs | 2,987 | Around 2.2x better PassMark score | |||
| Better 3DMark11 physics score | 6,230 | vs | 2,910 | Around 2.2x better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Marginally newer | Jan, 2011 | vs | Jan, 2007 | Release date over 4 years later | |||
| Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | 5,860 | vs | 2,778 | More than 2x better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 20,381 | vs | 9,681 | More than 2x better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| Slightly better performance per watt | 6.08 pt/W | vs | 4.28 pt/W | More than 40% better performance per watt | |||
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i5 2500K
x264 HD 4.0
Core2 Quad Q6600
47.9 fps
Core i5 2500K
86.9 fps
Reviews Word on the street
| Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Core i5 2500K | ||
| 8.0 | 9.0 | Core i5 2500K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.4 | 9.8 | Core i5 2500K | |
Overall | 8.9 Out of 10 | 9.4 Out of 10 | ||
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Core i5 2500K |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.3 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| LGA 1155 | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | No | No | |
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 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 3000 | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | 10.1 | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 2 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 850 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,100 MHz | |
| 3DMark06 | N/A | 5,275 | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
details | Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Core i5 2500K |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nms | 32 nms | |
| Transistor count | 582,000,000 | 1,160,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 9 | 33 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.5V | 1.2 - 1.5V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 62.2°C | 5 - 72.6°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 278 | 3,179 | |
| Overclock review score | 5 | 5 | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 105W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 25.29 $/year | 41.29 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 91.98 $/year | 110.03 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 4.28 pt/W | 6.08 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 85.31W | 112.55W | |
| Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 | Intel Core i5 2500K |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
| VS | |
| $63 | $125 | |
| Q6600 vs 3220 | ||
| VS | |
| $63 | $226 | |
| Q6600 vs 3570K | ||
| VS | |
| $63 | $20 | |
| Q6600 vs E8400 | ||
| VS | |
| $309 | $226 | |
| 2500K vs 3570K | ||
| VS | |
| $309 | $170 | |
| 2500K vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $309 | $240 | |
| 2500K vs 4690K | ||
| VS | |
| $309 | $110 | |
| 2500K vs 6300 | ||
Popular Comparisons
| VS | |
| $325 | $247 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | $161 | |
| 3110M vs N3530 | ||
| VS | |
| $325 | $340 | |
| 4770K vs 4790K | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| 3217U vs N2830 | ||
| VS | |
| $281 | $97 | |
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| 5750M vs 4700MQ | ||
| VS | |
| 5 Octa vs 800 | ||





