Athlon X4 950 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Aggregated performance score
Athlon X4 950 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by an impressive 98% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Athlon X4 950 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2246 | 1697 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.77 | 3.66 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | no data | 27 July 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $60 |
| Current price | $67 | $52 (0.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon X4 950 has 107% better value for money than Core 2 Quad Q6600.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Athlon X4 950 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 | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Bus support | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | no data | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Athlon X4 950 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 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Athlon X4 950. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Athlon X4 950 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Athlon X4 950. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Dual-channel |
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.
Athlon X4 950 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by 98% based on our aggregated 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%
Athlon X4 950 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by 98% 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%
Athlon X4 950 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by 145% 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%
Athlon X4 950 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by 113% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.17 | 2.32 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Athlon X4 950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Athlon X4 950, 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.
