Xeon E5640 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5640 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by a whopping 104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5640 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2270 | 1699 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.77 | 0.85 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) |
| Release date | no data | 16 March 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $49 |
| Current price | $67 | $68 (1.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 2 Quad Q6600 has 108% better value for money than Xeon E5640.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5640 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 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.66 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| Bus support | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 239 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 78 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,170 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5640 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 | 2 |
| Socket | no data | FCLGA1366,LGA1366 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5640. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 40 Bit |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5640 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5640 are enumerated here.
| 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 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5640. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 288 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5640.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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.
Xeon E5640 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by 104% 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%
Xeon E5640 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by 104% 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%
Xeon E5640 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by 23% 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%
Xeon E5640 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by 64% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.17 | 2.39 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 80 Watt |
The Xeon E5640 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5640 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5640, 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.
