EPYC 7302 vs Core 2 Duo E6600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo E6600
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.59
EPYC 7302
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 155 Watt
21.34
+3517%

EPYC 7302 outperforms Core 2 Duo E6600 by a whopping 3517% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo E6600 and EPYC 7302 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking2697231
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.4615.71
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesCore 2 Duo (Desktop)AMD EPYC
Architecture codenameConroe (2006−2007)Zen 2 (2019−2020)
Release dateno data7 August 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$978
Current price$9.99 $884 (0.9x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7302 has 354% better value for money than Core 2 Duo E6600.

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo E6600 and EPYC 7302 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 cores2 (Dual-core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads232
Base clock speedno data3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus support1066 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cacheno data512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography65 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die sizeno data192 mm2
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo E6600 and EPYC 7302 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 configurationno data2 (Multiprocessor)
Socketno dataTR4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt155 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo E6600 and EPYC 7302. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NIno data+
AVXno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo E6600 and EPYC 7302 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo E6600 and EPYC 7302. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory supportno 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.

Core 2 Duo E6600 0.59
EPYC 7302 21.34
+3517%

EPYC 7302 outperforms Core 2 Duo E6600 by 3517% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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 919
EPYC 7302 33002
+3491%

EPYC 7302 outperforms Core 2 Duo E6600 by 3491% 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 261
EPYC 7302 1163
+346%

EPYC 7302 outperforms Core 2 Duo E6600 by 346% 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 416
EPYC 7302 9000
+2063%

EPYC 7302 outperforms Core 2 Duo E6600 by 2063% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.59 21.34
Physical cores 2 16
Threads 2 32
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 155 Watt

The EPYC 7302 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E6600 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Duo E6600 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7302 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6600 and EPYC 7302, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
Core 2 Duo E6600
AMD EPYC 7302
EPYC 7302

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 412 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo E6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 30 votes

Rate EPYC 7302 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo E6600 or EPYC 7302, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.