Both versions of the E6600 will show up as an E6600 - B2 in CPU-Z. It doesn't differentiate between the two different models.
Here's some background info that explains what information was released at the Intel Developer's Forum.
They refer to these values as TJ Target and the point that I refer to as TJ Max can actually be higher than the target value.
At the first conference they released this information.
The TJMax value that most software originally assumed to be correct was 85C so this was quite a change. After doing some research I discovered that 85C was based on the previous Pentium 4 generation of CPUs. There was a bit within the CPU and depending on whether this bit was set or not, TJMax was either 85C or 100C and then Intel later admitted that this bit only applies to mobile processors. I can't think of any Core 2 mobile processors that have a TJMax of 85C. That's what originally happened. Early monitoring software would read this bit and guess at 85C or 100C. Neither value was right in my opinion. Based on testing with a laser thermometer, I believe 90C is a lot closer to actual TJMax for the average retail E6600 CPU.
Through my contact at Tom's Hardware, I let Intel know that 70C was a farce and that number did not agree with any of my testing. The programmer of Core Temp also complained and decided to ignore Intel's version of things too. Intel finally deciding to clear up the TJMax confusion only led to more confusion.
After that, they took my value of 90C and their value of 70C and split the difference and decided that they had made a mistake and the real TJ Target value is actually 80C. This updated information was released at the next developer's forum but was not well reported. Here's one of the slides.
Once again, this is a TJ Target value so Intel was able to release this info and keep everyone sort of happy. If I was going to continue claiming that TJ Max is 90C, Intel could just say that 80C is the TJ Target value and actual TJ Max might be higher. They did a great job of covering their bums and no one was able to call them on this. The way their presentation was worded left it wide open to interpretation. Even if someone tested 100 processors and they were all TJMax=90C, that didn't disagree with their presentation and TJ Target values so it was impossible to prove anything. That's about the time I gave up buying endless processors to test.
After all, who are users going to believe, a big multi-national company like Intel or some geek in his basement with his laser thermometer comparing CPUs and power consumption readings with a $15 Kill-a-Watt meter.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand the motivation on Intel's part. If user's start assuming that TJMax is less than the actual TJMax then their CPUs will be reported at a lower core temperature and there will be less complaints and less RMA claims.
After all this, there were many users that glossed over the TJ Target disclaimer that Intel used at their presentation and decided to start using the original numbers they released as TJ Max. My contact at Tom's Hardware had an E6600 that based on my opinion of TJMax, was running hot as hell and he was very skeptical. His was an early E6600 - SL9S8 so I offered him a very sweet deal. I traded him a Q6600 - G0 straight across for his E6600 - B2. It took him about two seconds to agree to that deal.
I have a Tuniq Tower air cooler which was a decent air cooler in it's day and even with that this CPU was running hot as hell. I also use a Kill-a-Watt meter and noticed right away that it was drawing far more power at idle compared to when I had my E8400 dual core in there. It was also putting out way more heat than my original and very similar E6400 - SL9S9. The E6400 was basically identical to an E6600 but half of the L2 cache was disabled. My E6400 was a late E6400 and his E6600 was an early production version so I thought that maybe part of the difference was that Intel changed out the L2 cache chips to a more efficient version and that's how they got their idle power consumption numbers down. I'm not an Intel insider so all I can do is guess. The bottom line is that the E6600 I tested ran hot as hell and put out way more heat than other similar processors at idle.
After I sanded down the heatspreader, temperatures got better but it still consumed more power and ran hotter than other CPUs I have tested. It put out more heat at idle than my Q6600 - G0.
Anyway, after getting it cleaned up, I ran it for 10+ hours of Prime95 action and here are the results. You can see the voltage and temperatures based on TJMax=90C. It was in an open case with the room temperature around 20C, cooled by a Tuniq Tower heatsink with the fan on low. Your temperatures of your E6600 don't seem too unusual to me.
Not everyone in these forums was around way back when the original E6600 came out. Intel might have done a running production change of the cache chips on the original SL9S8 and not bothered to change the sSpec model number. I don't know and the people that do know all these details will never tell you.
If you want your CPU to run cooler then I guess you will have to pull it apart and have a look at it. I've seen quite a few chips and this E6600 was the worst IHS that I had ever seen.
That's a really good post! 
