C-30 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and C-30 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2370 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | AMD C-Series |
| Power efficiency | 1.03 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Ontario (2011−2012) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and C-30 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | no data | 75 mm2 |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and C-30 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 | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 9 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and C-30. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 40 nm, 1.24-1.35V |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and C-30 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and C-30. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 Single-channel |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6250 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 9 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q6600 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
C-30, on the other hand, has a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1066.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and C-30. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while C-30 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and C-30, 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.
