Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400 based on its .
See full details Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Duo E8400 |
Released January, 2007
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
6.7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
 | More l2 cache 8 MB | | More cores 4 |
| | Much better SysMark 2007 video creation score 209 | | More threads 4 |
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
6.8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Duo E8400
| | Newer manufacturing process 45 nms | | Higher clock speed 3 GHz |
| | Much better performance per dollar 20.87 pt/$ | | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
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
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core) | |
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 Core2 Duo E8400CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
| Much 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 | |||
| Better geekbench (64-bit) score | 4,514 | vs | 3,128 | Around 45% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Better PassMark score | 2,990 | vs | 2,172 | Around 40% better PassMark score | |||
| Slightly better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 9,681 | vs | 7,187 | Around 35% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| |||||||
| 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 | 20.87 pt/$ | vs | 9.21 pt/$ | More than 2.2x 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 | |||
| Significantly 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 | 1,257 | vs | 922 | 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 | |||
| Newer | Jan, 2008 | vs | Jan, 2007 | Release date a year later | |||
| Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | vs | 91.98 $/year | Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | vs | 25.29 $/year | Around 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Duo E8400
GeekBench (32-bit)
x264 HD 4.0
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
Cinebench R10 32-Bit
sysmark 2007 (overall)
Passmark
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 | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | No | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
| Has virtualization 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 | 4.21 pt/W | 5.78 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 85.31W | 52.81W | |
 Intel Core2 Quad Q6600  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Duo E8400 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $85 | $48 | |
| 3220 vs Q6600 | ||
 | VS | |
| $227 | $48 | |
| 3570K vs Q6600 | ||
 | VS | |
| $65 | $48 | |
| G3258 vs Q6600 | ||
 | VS | |
| $65 | $48 | |
| Q8200 vs Q6600 | ||
 | VS | |
| $60 | $48 | |
| Q8400 vs Q6600 | ||
 | VS | |
| $100 | $48 | |
| 6300 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $85 | $18 | |
| 3220 vs E8400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $330 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $364 | $330 | |
| 5820K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS | |
| $230 | $330 | |
| 4690K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $49 | |
| N3530 vs 3110M | ||
| | VS |  |
| $230 | $149 | |
| 4690K vs 8350 | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 1 comment.
