Xeon 5148 vs Core 2 Duo E6600
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Duo E6600 outperforms Xeon 5148 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Xeon 5148 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2823 | 2825 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.05 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | Core 2 Duo (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.84 | 1.35 |
| Architecture codename | Conroe (2006−2007) | Woodcrest (2006) |
| Release date | no data | June 2006 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Xeon 5148 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.33 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 0 KB |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 291 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Xeon 5148 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 | 1 |
| Socket | 775 | 771 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 40 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Xeon 5148. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo (Desktop) E6600 and Xeon 5148. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR2 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.58 | 0.57 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 40 Watt |
Core 2 Duo E6600 has a 1.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Xeon 5148, on the other hand, has 62.5% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Duo E6600 and Xeon 5148.
Note that Core 2 Duo E6600 is a desktop processor while Xeon 5148 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E6600 and Xeon 5148, 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.
