CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q9400 vs E6750 among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

3.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Quad Q9400  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q9400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q9400

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.15 GHz vs 3.72 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Newer Jul, 2008 vs Jul, 2007 Release date a year later
Front view of Intel Core2 Duo E6750

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo E6750

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 77.19W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.67 GHz vs 3.54 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q9400 vs Duo E6750

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Quad Q9400
114,000 MB/s
Core2 Duo E6750
113,500 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q9400  vs
Duo E6750 
Clock speed 2.66 GHz 2.66 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 95W 65W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 1.51 pt/W 1.7 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 52.81W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 1,333 MHz

details

Core2 Quad Q9400  vs
Duo E6750 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 6 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 65 nm
Transistor count 456,000,000 291,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 8 8
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.36V 0.85 - 1.5V
Operating temperature Unknown - 71.4°C Unknown - 72°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 34 30
Overclocked clock speed 3.54 GHz 3.67 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.15 GHz 3.72 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.54 GHz 3.67 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
Intel Core2 Quad Q9400
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Duo E6750
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus