Core 2 Quad Q6700 vs Xeon X3330

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core 2 Quad Q6700 vs Xeon X3330 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core 2 Quad Q6700 vs Xeon X3330: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core 2 Quad Q6700

2007

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon X3330 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,092 vs 2,102).
❌Launch MSRP is still $530 MSRP, while Xeon X3330 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon X3330

2008

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon X3330 better than Core 2 Quad Q6700?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon X3330 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core 2 Quad Q6700 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon X3330 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon X3330 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Xeon X3330 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon X3330 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $530 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Quad Q6700 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2007 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon X3330 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2007). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core 2 Quad Q6700 vs Xeon X3330 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core 2 Quad Q6700

The Core 2 Quad Q6700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Kentsfield (2007) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.66 GHz, with boost up to 2.67 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 8 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 105 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,092 points. Launch price was $249.

Xeon X3330

The Xeon X3330 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. Base frequency: 2.66 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 2,102 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 2 Quad Q6700 is built on the Kentsfield (2007) architecture. In PassMark, the Core 2 Quad Q6700 scores 2,092 against the Xeon X3330's 2,102 — a 0.5% lead for the Xeon X3330. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Core 2 Quad Q6700 vs 6 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon X3330.

Feature	Core 2 Quad Q6700	Xeon X3330
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	—
Boost Clock	2.67 GHz	—
Base Clock	2.66 GHz	2.66 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	6 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	8 MB (total)	—
Process	65 nm	45 nm-31%
Architecture	Kentsfield (2007)	—
PassMark	2,092	2,102