EPYC 9535 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and EPYC 9535 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2384 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.03 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $8,992 |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and EPYC 9535 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 2x 143 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 582 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and EPYC 9535 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) | 105 Watt | 300 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and EPYC 9535. 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 (Desktop) Q6600 and EPYC 9535 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and EPYC 9535. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and EPYC 9535.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | no data | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 64 |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 300 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q6600 has 185.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9535, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2024 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and EPYC 9535. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9535 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and EPYC 9535, 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.
