E-350 vs Core 2 Duo E6600
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Duo E6600 and E-350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2697 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.46 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Duo (Desktop) | AMD E-Series |
| Architecture codename | Conroe (2006−2007) | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | no data | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Current price | $9.99 | $268 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Duo E6600 and E-350 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 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus support | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | no data | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Duo E6600 and E-350 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 | FT1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo E6600 and E-350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | DDR3-1066/DDR3L-1066 RAM, PCIe 2 [?], MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo E6600 and E-350 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo E6600 and E-350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6310 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core 2 Duo E6600 outperforms E-350 by 118% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core 2 Duo E6600 outperforms E-350 by 151% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core 2 Duo E6600 outperforms E-350 by 130% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Core 2 Duo E6600 outperforms E-350 by 135% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core 2 Duo E6600 outperforms E-350 by 134% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core 2 Duo E6600 outperforms E-350 by 101% in 3DMark06 CPU.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
E-350 outperforms Core 2 Duo E6600 by 90% in wPrime 32.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Core 2 Duo E6600 outperforms E-350 by 121% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 18 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Duo E6600 and E-350. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Duo E6600 is a desktop processor while E-350 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6600 and E-350, 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.
