CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs 750

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU), Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 2 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

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core i5 750 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 750  based on its performance.

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
Front view of Intel Core i5 750

Intel Core i5 750

CPUBoss Winner

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
Significantly lower typical power consumption 85.31W vs 122.45W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Much better performance per dollar 6.8 pt/$ vs 3.1 pt/$ Around 2.2x better performance per dollar
Much lower annual home energy cost 25.29 $/year vs 42.81 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 91.98 $/year vs 122.73 $/year More than 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Core i5 750

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 750

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 45 nms vs 65 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better SysMark 2007 overall score 217 vs 170 Around 30% better SysMark 2007 overall score
Higher clock speed 2.66 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Much better SysMark 2007 video creation score 243 vs 209 More than 15% better SysMark 2007 video creation score
Much better SysMark 2007 3D score 221 vs 150 More than 45% better SysMark 2007 3D score
Much better SysMark 2007 productivity score 218 vs 172 More than 25% better SysMark 2007 productivity score
Much higher Maximum Operating Temperature 72.7 °C vs 62.2 °C More than 15% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Better 3DMark11 physics score 4,570 vs 2,910 More than 55% better 3DMark11 physics score
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,134 vs 920 Around 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Marginally newer Jul, 2009 vs Jan, 2007 Release date over 2 years later
Better 3DMark06 CPU score 4,320 vs 3,546.5 More than 20% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 4,238 vs 2,778 Around 55% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 6,477 vs 4,509 Around 45% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Slightly better PassMark score 3,746 vs 2,984 More than 25% better PassMark score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 14,142 vs 9,681 More than 45% better cinebench r10 32Bit score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i5 750

x264 HD 4.0

Core2 Quad Q6600
47.9 fps
Core i5 750
66.44 fps

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core2 Quad Q6600 Core i5 750 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core2 Quad Q6600 Core i5 750 @ anandtech.com
Results: Running Cinebench R10 in 64-bit mode showed that the Intel Core i7 870 and Core i5 750 processors were more than able to keep up with the other processors.
Core i5 750 | by Legit Reviews (Sep, 2009)

sysmark 2007 (overall)

Core2 Quad Q6600 Core i5 750 @ anandtech.com

Reviews Word on the street

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs Core i5 750 

8.0
9.0
Somehow, however, this plucky little quad remains relevant, especially if gaming grunt is high on your list of priorities.
Core i5 750

9.4
9.1
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
9.3 Out of 10

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs
Core i5 750 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 2.66 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 775
LGA 1156
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
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
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

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1

details

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs
Core i5 750 
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 45 nms
Transistor count 582,000,000 774,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 20
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.5V 0.65 - 1.4V
Operating temperature Unknown - 62.2°C Unknown - 72.7°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 278 159
Overclock review score 5 4.5

power consumption

TDP 105W 95W
Annual home energy cost 25.29 $/year 42.81 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 91.98 $/year 122.73 $/year
Performance per watt 4.4 pt/W 3.29 pt/W
Typical power consumption 85.31W 122.45W
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 750
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus