CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 2500K

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit), GeekBench (64-bit) and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

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?

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?

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

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 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
Front view of Intel Core i5 2500K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 2500K

Report a correction
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

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core2 Quad Q6600 Core i5 2500K @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

sysmark 2007 (overall)

Passmark

Core2 Quad Q6600 Core i5 2500K @ cpubenchmark.net

Reviews Word on the street

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs Core i5 2500K 

8.0
9.0
In terms of 3D performance, the detail spec changes include an upgrade from DX10 to DX10.
Core i5 2500K

9.4
9.8
Boots up faster, daily things are faster, gaming results in more FPS and it clocks 10x better and higher.
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
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 2500K
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus