Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs Xeon L3360
Aggregate performance score
Xeon L3360 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q6600 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon L3360 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2126 | 2370 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 2.22 | 1.03 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Kentsfield (2007) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon L3360 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 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 | no data | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.83 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1066 MHz |
| L3 cache | 12 MB L2 Cache | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 76 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon L3360 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 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.
| Socket | LGA775 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon L3360 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon L3360 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon L3360 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.58 | 1.19 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 105 Watt |
Xeon L3360 has a 32.8% higher aggregate performance score, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 61.5% lower power consumption.
The Xeon L3360 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon L3360 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon L3360 and Core 2 Quad Q6600, 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.
