Winner
Intel Core i5 750
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 750 based on its performance.
See full details Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i5 750 |
Released January, 2007
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
7.4 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 |
| | Significantly lower typical power consumption 85.31W | | Much better performance per dollar 6.8 pt/$ |
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 July, 2009
Intel Core i5 750
- 2.66 GHz
- Quad core
7.6 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core i5 750
| | Newer manufacturing process 45 nms | | Much better SysMark 2007 overall score 217 |
| | Higher clock speed 2.66 GHz | | Much better SysMark 2007 video creation score 243 |
by Legit Reviews (Sep, 2009)Benchmark Results with a GeForce GTX 295 Graphics Card: World In Conflict showed that the Intel Core i7 870 and Core i5 750 are great processors and easily blow by anything that AMD has to offer on the desktop processor market.
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 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core i5 750CPUBoss Winner |
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 | |||
| 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 | |||
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Core i5 750
GeekBench (32-bit)
x264 HD 4.0
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
Cinebench R10 32-Bit
Core i5 750 | by Legit Reviews (Sep, 2009)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.
sysmark 2007 (overall)
Passmark
Reviews Word on the street
| Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Core i5 750 | ||
 | Core i5 750 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Core2 Quad Q6600 | |||
Overall | Out of 10 | 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 |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $68 | $125 | |
| Q6600 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $68 | $230 | |
| Q6600 vs 3570K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $68 | $28 | |
| Q6600 vs E8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $68 | $85 | |
| Q6600 vs Q8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $68 | $70 | |
| Q6600 vs Q8200 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $68 | $313 | |
| Q6600 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $68 | $120 | |
| Q6600 vs 6300 | ||
Popular Comparisons
| | VS |  |
| $313 | $323 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $313 | $340 | |
| 4770K vs 4790K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $313 | $195 | |
| 4770K vs 4790 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | ||
| 5750M vs 4700MQ | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | $235 | |
| 8350 vs 4670K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | $393 | |
| 4200U vs 4500U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| 4200U vs 4200M | ||
