Intel Core2 X9100 vs Quad Q9650 |
Released July, 2008
Intel Core2 X9100
- 3.06 GHz
- Dual core
- Unlocked
5.1 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 X9100
 | Much lower typical power consumption 35.75W | | Better performance per watt 2.93 pt/W |
| | Much lower annual home energy cost 10.6 $/year | | Much lower annual commercial energy cost 38.54 $/year |
VS
Released August, 2008
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650
- 3 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
5.1 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Quad Q9650
| | Much more l2 cache 12 MB | | Significantly better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 5,792 |
| | Supports trusted computing Yes | | More cores 4 |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of X9100 vs Q9650 among all 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 | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
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? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core2 Quad Q9650CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 35.75W | vs | 77.19W | 2.2x lower typical power consumption | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better performance per watt | 2.93 pt/W | vs | 1.47 pt/W | Around 2x better performance per watt | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 10.6 $/year | vs | 22.89 $/year | 2.2x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 38.54 $/year | vs | 83.22 $/year | 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 12 MB | vs | 6 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Significantly better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 5,792 | vs | 3,039 | More than 90% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Significantly better performance per dollar | 0.41 pt/$ | vs | 0.15 pt/$ | Around 2.8x better performance per dollar | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.15 GHz | vs | 3.78 GHz | Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.25 GHz | vs | 3.07 GHz | Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 X9100 vs Quad Q9650
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
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 X9100 | vs | Quad Q9650 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.06 GHz | 3 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| 478 | |||
| P | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | Yes | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | 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 | 44W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 10.6 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 38.54 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 2.93 pt/W | 1.47 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 35.75W | 77.19W | |
details | Core2 X9100 | vs | Quad Q9650 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 12 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 45 nm | |
| Transistor count | 410,000,000 | 820,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 12 | 9 | |
| Voltage range | 1.05 - 1.26V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.78 GHz | 4.15 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.07 GHz | 4.25 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.78 GHz | 4.15 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 | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,066 MHz | 1,333 MHz | |
 Intel Core2 X9100  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $287 | $339 | |
| Q9550 vs Q9650 | ||
 | VS | |
| $969 | $339 | |
| E5450 vs Q9650 | ||
 | VS | |
| $339 | ||
| Q6600 vs Q9650 | ||
 | VS | |
| $179 | $339 | |
| E8400 vs Q9650 | ||
 | VS | |
| $339 | ||
| QX9650 vs Q9650 | ||
 | VS | |
| $1,245 | $339 | |
| X5460 vs Q9650 | ||
 | VS | |
| $912 | $339 | |
| X5450 vs Q9650 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| 3217U vs 847 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
