CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q6600 vs E8400

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

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400  based on its .

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

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
Significantly more l2 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Significantly better SysMark 2007 video creation score 209 vs 194 Around 10% better SysMark 2007 video creation score
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Slightly better PassMark score 2,987 vs 2,168 Around 40% better PassMark score
Slightly better geekbench (64-bit) score 4,539 vs 3,139 Around 45% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Front view of Intel Core2 Duo E8400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo E8400

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 45 nms vs 65 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 25% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 19.11 pt/$ vs 7.25 pt/$ Around 2.8x better performance per dollar
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 2 MB/core 50% more l2 cache per core
Significantly better SysMark 2007 overall score 191 vs 170 More than 10% better SysMark 2007 overall score
Lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 85.31W Around 40% lower typical power consumption
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 better SysMark 2007 productivity score 201 vs 172 More than 15% better SysMark 2007 productivity score
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,256 vs 921 More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better SysMark 2007 3D score 176 vs 150 More than 15% better SysMark 2007 3D score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 3,647 vs 2,778 More than 30% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Marginally newer Jan, 2008 vs Jan, 2007 Release date a year later
Slightly better performance per watt 5.88 pt/W vs 4.28 pt/W More than 35% better performance per watt
Lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 91.98 $/year Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 25.29 $/year Around 40% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Duo E8400

x264 HD 4.0

Core2 Quad Q6600
47.9 fps
Core2 Duo E8400
33.59 fps

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core2 Quad Q6600 Core2 Duo E8400 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Reviews Word on the street

Core2 Quad Q6600  vs Duo E8400 

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

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
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
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 FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,066 MHz 1,333 MHz

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 nms 45 nms
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

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 4.28 pt/W 5.88 pt/W
Typical power consumption 85.31W 52.81W
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 1 comment.
Yah I agree with cpu boss
comments powered by Disqus