Product face-offs
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
 | |||
| Socket | 775 | ||
| Number of cores | 4 | ||
| Clock rate | 2.4 GHz | ||
| Cache | 8 MB | ||
| Thermal Design Power | 105 W | ||
 See all specifications | |||
| Technology | 65 nm |
 Hide specifications | |
Quad-Core from Intel
Released in November 2006, the Core 2 Quad Q6000 line was Intel's first collection of quad-core processors. They are the equivalent of the dual-core models found in the Core 2 Duo E6000 line. This Q6600 arrived in January 2007 and was refined in April 2007.
Based on the Kentsfield architecture, these processors fit 775 sockets and have an 8 MB cache.
Based on the Kentsfield architecture, these processors fit 775 sockets and have an 8 MB cache.
Régis Jehl
Test date: 2008-10-31
Test date: 2008-10-31
For a long time, the Q6600 was for a long time Intel's entry-level quad-core processor offering, although by entry-level, CPU manufacturers have a tendancy to mean the cheapest of wht can be rather expensive lines.
Despite the fact that it has largely been superseded by the Core 2 Quad Q8200, the Q6600 remains a solid processor, and even beat the newermodel in some of our tests.
When we put them through our image editing test in Photoshop CS3, for instance, the Q6600 applied the filter to our test photo in just 2 minutes 56 seconds in place of the 3 minutes 33 taken by the Q8200.
It seems that as well as having an extra 67 MHz on board, the Q6600's 8 MB of cache--twice as much as is available on the Q8200--helped it come out on top.
Where the new Q8000 series does better, though, is in terms of power consumption.
Engineered at a smaller scale, they use a lot less energy, meaning that the Q8200 used only 161 W at rest, while the Q6600 caused our test machine to draw 180 W while idling.
The results are similar with the CPU load at 100%: our test PC used 222 W with the Q8200, but 282 W with the Q6600.
Despite the fact that it has largely been superseded by the Core 2 Quad Q8200, the Q6600 remains a solid processor, and even beat the newermodel in some of our tests.
Compare the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 with the Intel Core 2 Duo 8200 and other CPUs in our
Product Face-Off
Product Face-Off
When we put them through our image editing test in Photoshop CS3, for instance, the Q6600 applied the filter to our test photo in just 2 minutes 56 seconds in place of the 3 minutes 33 taken by the Q8200.
It seems that as well as having an extra 67 MHz on board, the Q6600's 8 MB of cache--twice as much as is available on the Q8200--helped it come out on top.
Where the new Q8000 series does better, though, is in terms of power consumption.
Engineered at a smaller scale, they use a lot less energy, meaning that the Q8200 used only 161 W at rest, while the Q6600 caused our test machine to draw 180 W while idling.
The results are similar with the CPU load at 100%: our test PC used 222 W with the Q8200, but 282 W with the Q6600.
-
Classic quad-core performance: speedy across the board
-
Good in non-optimized applications too
-
High power consumption
-
Superseded by the Q8xxx line
This was one of the first quad-core processors to hit the market, and part of Intel's inaugural four core line. Despite the arrival of more powerful CPUs, it's still a strong performer.
