EPYC 9654 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W)
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 5 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.27 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 19.76 |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 23 July 2007 (17 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $266 | $11,805 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) and EPYC 9654 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) | 96 |
| Threads | 4 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 6 MB |
| L2 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 96 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | 2x 143 mm2 | 12x 72 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 62 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 582 million | 78,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) and EPYC 9654 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 | 2 |
| Socket | 775 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) and EPYC 9654.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 23 July 2007 | 10 November 2022 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 96 |
| Threads | 4 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 360 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) has 278.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 15 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) and EPYC 9654. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) and EPYC 9654, 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.
