Xeon E5-2693 V3 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Xeon E5-2693 V3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2375 | 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 | 1.04 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Haswell-EP (2014−2015) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Xeon E5-2693 V3 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) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | no data | 356 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Xeon E5-2693 V3 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 | 2 |
| Socket | no data | 2011-3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 160 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Xeon E5-2693 V3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Xeon E5-2693 V3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Xeon E5-2693 V3 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 and Xeon E5-2693 V3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-2133 |
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 Xeon E5-2693 V3.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 40 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 12 |
| Threads | 4 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 160 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q6600 has 52.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon E5-2693 V3, on the other hand, has 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 195.5% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5-2693 V3. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5-2693 V3 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Xeon E5-2693 V3, 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.
