0 Comments
| Intel Core2 X9100 vs Quad Q9650 |
Released July, 2008
Intel Core2 X9100
- 3.06 GHz
- Dual core
- Unlocked
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
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) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 X9100 vs Quad Q9650
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 X9100
3,039
Core2 Quad Q9650
5,792
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 X9100
1,663
Core2 Quad Q9650
1,692
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 X9100
129,300 MB/s
Core2 Quad Q9650
128,200 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 X9100
2,965
Core2 Quad Q9650
5,442
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 X9100
2,529
Core2 Quad Q9650
5,901
GeekBench
Core2 X9100
3,445
Core2 Quad Q9650
7,010
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Core2 X9100
2,057
Core2 Quad Q9650
4,222
PassMark (Single Core)
Core2 X9100
1,178
Core2 Quad Q9650
1,267
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 ![]() | Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 ![]() |
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 | ||