Core 2 Extreme X6800 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X6800 by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) X6800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2347 | 2683 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Conroe (2006−2007) |
| Release date | no data | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) X6800 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | 1066 MHz |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) X6800 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.
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 75 Watt |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 0.72 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 75 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q6600 has a 65.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Core 2 Extreme X6800, on the other hand, has 40% lower power consumption.
The Core 2 Quad Q6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme X6800 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Core 2 Extreme X6800, 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.
