Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400 based on its single-core performance, overclocking and value.
See full details Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Duo E8400 |
Released January, 2007
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
4.9 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
 | Much better PassMark score 2,993 | | More cores 4 |
| | More threads 4 | | Much better cinebench r10 32Bit score 9,681 |
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, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
5.1 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Duo E8400
| | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm | | Significantly higher clock speed 3 GHz |
| | Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 3,647 | | Supports trusted computing Yes |
by Anthony-Garreffa (Sep, 2012)Your GPU setup is more than good enough to run Battlefield 3 at medium-to-high settings at 1920x1080, so I would suggest waiting and upgrading to an Ivy Bridge setup.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs E8400 among desktop CPUs
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more | |
Integrated Graphics | |
Integrated GPU performance for graphics | |
| Fire Strike | |
Integrated Graphics (OpenCL) | |
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
How efficiently does the processor use electricity? | |
| Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
| 5.1 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core2 Duo E8400CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better PassMark score | 2,993 | vs | 2,172 | Around 40% better PassMark score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Much better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 9,681 | vs | 7,187 | Around 35% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 2.4 GHz | More than 25% higher clock speed | |||
| Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | 3,647 | vs | 2,778 | More than 30% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 72.4 °C | vs | 62.2 °C | More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Significantly lower typical power consumption | 52.81W | vs | 85.31W | Around 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,257 | vs | 922 | More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.23 GHz | vs | 3.52 GHz | More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Newer | Jan, 2008 | vs | Jan, 2007 | Release date a year later | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | vs | 25.29 $/year | Around 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | vs | 91.98 $/year | Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.21 GHz | vs | 3.74 GHz | Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Duo E8400
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Reviews Word on the street
| Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Duo E8400 | ||
 | Core2 Quad Q6600 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Duo E8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
integrated graphics | |||
| 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 | |
details | Core2 Quad Q6600 | vs | Duo E8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 6 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 45 nm | |
| Transistor count | 582,000,000 | 410,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 9 | 9 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.5V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 62.2°C | Unknown - 72.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 278 | 125 | |
| Overclock review score | 5 | 4.5 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.52 GHz | 4.23 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.74 GHz | 4.21 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.52 GHz | 4.23 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 105W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 25.29 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 91.98 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.39 pt/W | 2.11 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 85.31W | 52.81W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,066 MHz | 1,333 MHz | |
 Intel Core2 Quad Q6600  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Duo E8400 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $238 | $118 | |
| 3220 vs Q6600 | ||
 | VS | |
| $184 | $118 | |
| 3570K vs Q6600 | ||
 | VS | |
| $917 | $118 | |
| Q8200 vs Q6600 | ||
 | VS | |
| $118 | $118 | |
| Q8400 vs Q6600 | ||
 | VS | |
| $191 | $118 | |
| Q9550 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $238 | $11 | |
| 3220 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $0 | $11 | |
| E7500 vs E8400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $393 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $393 | $227 | |
| 6700K vs 6600K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7410 vs 5200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $747 | $666 | |
| 6500U vs 6200U | ||
| | VS | |
| $666 | $281 | |
| 6200U vs 5200U | ||
 | VS | |
| $161 | $281 | |
| N3700 vs 5200U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $747 | $378 | |
| 6500U vs 6700HQ | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 1 comment.
