Core 2 Extreme X6800 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

Place in performance ranking	2243	2637
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.77	0.11
Market segment	Desktop processor	Desktop processor
Series	Core 2 Quad (Desktop)	Core 2 Extreme (Desktop)
Architecture codename	Kentsfield (2007)	Conroe (2006−2007)
Release date	no data	no data
Current price	$67	$500

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 has 1509% better value for money than Core 2 Extreme X6800.

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 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	2
Boost clock speed	2.4 GHz	2.93 GHz
Bus support	1066 MHz	1066 MHz
Chip lithography	65 nm	65 nm
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-
Unlocked multiplier	No	No

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 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.

Power consumption (TDP)

105 Watt

75 Watt

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 1.17
+82.8%

Core 2 Extreme X6800 0.64

Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X6800 by 83% 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%

Core 2 Quad Q6600 1812
+82.5%

Core 2 Extreme X6800 993

Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X6800 by 82% 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 2 Quad Q6600 2460

Core 2 Extreme X6800 3000
+22%

Core 2 Extreme X6800 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by 22% 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 8800
+54.4%

Core 2 Extreme X6800 5700

Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X6800 by 54% 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 3547
+38.1%

Core 2 Extreme X6800 2568

Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X6800 by 38% in 3DMark06 CPU.