Core 2 Extreme QX6850 vs A8-6600K
Aggregate performance score
A8-6600K outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1984 | 2189 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.31 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD A-Series (Desktop) | Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 1.79 | 1.05 |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Kentsfield (2007) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $142 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.9 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1333 MHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 8 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 2x 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | 64 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 582 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FM2 | 775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | FMA4 | - |
| AVX | AVX | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 8570D | no data |
| จำนวนพาธไลน์ | 256 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.89 | 1.44 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
A8-6600K has a 31.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.
The A8-6600K is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-6600K and Core 2 Extreme QX6850, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
