Core 2 Duo E6400 vs Athlon 64 X2 FX-60
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 outperforms Core 2 Duo E6400 by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Core 2 Duo E6400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2825 | 2903 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.49 | 0.71 |
| Architecture codename | Toledo (2006) | Conroe (2006−2007) |
| Release date | no data | July 2006 (18 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Core 2 Duo E6400 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.13 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.13 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1000 MHz | 1066 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 291 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.5V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Core 2 Duo E6400 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | LGA775,PLGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Core 2 Duo E6400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Core 2 Duo E6400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Core 2 Duo E6400 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Core 2 Duo E6400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.57 | 0.49 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 65 Watt |
Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 has a 16.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Core 2 Duo E6400, on the other hand, has a 38.5% more advanced lithography process, and 69.2% lower power consumption.
The Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E6400 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 and Core 2 Duo E6400, 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.
