Core 2 Duo E6600 vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX outperforms Core 2 Duo E6600 by a whopping 16579% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2 | 2806 |
| Place by popularity | 3 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.13 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Core 2 Duo (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 26.16 | 0.84 |
| Architecture codename | Storm Peak (2023) | Conroe (2006−2007) |
| Release date | 19 October 2023 (1 year ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 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 | 96 | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 192 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1066 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 384 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | Compute Die (CCD) Size 71 mm2, I/O Die (IOD) Size 388 mm2 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 78,840 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | sTR5 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no data |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
WinRAR 4.0
WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 96.74 | 0.58 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 2 |
| Threads | 192 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 65 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX has a 16579.3% higher aggregate performance score, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
Core 2 Duo E6600, on the other hand, has 438.5% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E6600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Duo E6600 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Core 2 Duo E6600, 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.
