Schwach | Durchschnitt | Gut | Exzellent | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Prozessorlithographie | 65 nm Am besten: HP AMD EPYC 7702 Prozessorlithographie: 7 nm | |||
Zahl der Kerne | 4 Am besten: Intel Xeon Phi Coprocessor 7290 Zahl der Kerne: 72 | |||
Taktfrequenz | 2,4 GHz Am besten: AMD FX 9590 Taktfrequenz: 4,7 GHz |
Prozessorsockel | LGA 775 |
---|---|
Betriebsarten | 64-bit |
Zwischenspeicher | 8 MB |
---|---|
Cache-Typ | L2 |
Thermische Überwachungstechnologien | Ja |
---|---|
Deaktivierungsbit ausführen | Ja |
Taktfrequenz | 2.4 GHz |
---|---|
Zahl der Kerne | 4 |
Anzahl der Themen | 4 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95.0 W |
Prozessorlithographie | 65.0 nm |
Bustyp | FSB |
Busgeschwindigkeit | 1066.0 MHz |
Leerlaufzustände | Ja |
Wärmespezifikation | 71.0 °C |
---|
Intel has already released the first desktop quad core processor, the 2.66 GHz Core 2 Extreme QX6700, so what can the company do for an encore? How about a lower-cost quad core processor designed for the performance mainstream market. That is what the Core 2 Quad Q6600 represents, and we've taken this 2.4 GHz powerhouse up against the very best processors from AMD and Intel.
Intel's meteoric rise to dominance in the CPU market over the last two years - and the stunning value of its processors - is highlighted by none better than the Q6600. It's based on the Core microarchitecture, the design responsible
Opteron 6234
A6 9500E
Ryzen 5 3600
EPYC 7551
A4 3400
A8 6600K