CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of G3258 vs Q6600 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

7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Pentium G3258 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Pentium G3258  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 Pentium G3258

Reasons to consider the
Intel Pentium G3258

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much higher clock speed 3.2 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 35% higher clock speed
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 43.06W vs 85.31W Around 50% lower typical power consumption
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.42 GHz vs 3.52 GHz More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 72 °C vs 62.2 °C More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 46.43 $/year vs 91.98 $/year Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 12.77 $/year vs 25.29 $/year Around 50% lower annual home energy cost
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.6 GHz vs 3.6 GHz Around 30% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Newer Apr, 2014 vs Jan, 2007 Release date over 7 years later
Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q6600

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600

Report a correction
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads

Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium G3258 vs Core2 Quad Q6600

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

Pentium G3258
231,200 MB/s
Core2 Quad Q6600
102,800 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Pentium G3258  vs
Core2 Quad Q6600 
Clock speed 3.2 GHz 2.4 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 53W 105W
Annual home energy cost 12.77 $/year 25.29 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 46.43 $/year 91.98 $/year
Performance per watt 3.41 pt/W 1.19 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.06W 85.31W

details

Pentium G3258  vs
Core2 Quad Q6600 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
Manufacture process 22 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 62.2°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.42 GHz 3.52 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.6 GHz 3.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.42 GHz 3.52 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,100 MHz N/A

bus

Architecture DMI 2.0 FSB
Number of links 0 1
Intel Pentium G3258
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus