A6-3420M vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms A6-3420M by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q6600 and A6-3420M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2270 | 2482 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.77 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | AMD A-Series |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | no data | 20 December 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $67 | $1578 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q6600 and A6-3420M 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 | no data | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus support | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 228 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q6600 and A6-3420M 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 | FS1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and A6-3420M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G, DDR3(L)-1333 Memory Controller |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and A6-3420M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and A6-3420M. 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 6520G |
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 Quad Q6600 outperforms A6-3420M by 39% 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 Quad Q6600 outperforms A6-3420M by 40% 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 Quad Q6600 outperforms A6-3420M by 17% 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 Quad Q6600 outperforms A6-3420M by 30% 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 Quad Q6600 outperforms A6-3420M by 47% 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 Quad Q6600 outperforms A6-3420M by 63% 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 Quad Q6600 outperforms A6-3420M by 54% in 3DMark06 CPU.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.17 | 0.84 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
The Core 2 Quad Q6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-3420M in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while A6-3420M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and A6-3420M, 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.
