Core 2 Duo E8300 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q6600
4 cores / 4 threads, 105 Watt
1.15
+82.5%
Core 2 Duo E8300
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.63

Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Core 2 Duo E8300 by an impressive 83% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Duo E8300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23752768
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesCore 2 Quad (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency1.040.92
Architecture codenameKentsfield (2007)Wolfdale (2008−2010)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)April 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Duo E8300 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speedno data2.83 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2.83 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHz1333 MHz
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cacheno data6 MB (shared)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data107 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistorsno data410 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.3625V

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Duo E8300 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 configurationno data1
Socketno dataLGA775
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Duo E8300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Duo E8300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Duo E8300 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Duo E8300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR1, DDR2, DDR3

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.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 1.15
+82.5%
Core 2 Duo E8300 0.63

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.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 1820
+82.5%
Core 2 Duo E8300 997

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.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 268
Core 2 Duo E8300 336
+25.4%

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.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 764
+32.9%
Core 2 Duo E8300 575

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.15 0.63
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 65 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 65 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q6600 has a 82.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Core 2 Duo E8300, on the other hand, has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 61.5% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Quad Q6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E8300 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Core 2 Duo E8300, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Core 2 Quad Q6600
Intel Core 2 Duo E8300
Core 2 Duo E8300

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 1765 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 66 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo E8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q6600 or Core 2 Duo E8300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.