Core m5-6Y54 vs Core 2 Extreme QX6850
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2070 | 2081 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.69 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) | Intel Core m5 |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| Release date | no data | 1 September 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $281 |
| Current price | $385 | $851 (3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Bus support | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 99 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1750 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54 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 | FCBGA1515 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 4.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| SIPP | no data | - |
| Smart Response | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 29.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 515 |
| Max video memory | no data | 16 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 900 MHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DVI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2304@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 3840x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 3840x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over VGA | no data | N/A |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 10 |
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 Extreme QX6850 outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 1% 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 Extreme QX6850 outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 1% in Passmark.
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 m5-6Y54 outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 28% 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 Extreme QX6850 outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 59% 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 Extreme QX6850 outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 52% in 3DMark06 CPU.
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 Extreme QX6850 outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 42% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.48 | 1.46 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 4 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54.
Note that Core 2 Extreme QX6850 is a desktop processor while Core m5-6Y54 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Core m5-6Y54, 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.
