Phenom X4 9650 vs Core 2 Extreme QX6700
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and Phenom X4 9650 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2145 | 2303 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.94 | 4.72 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Agena (2007−2008) |
| Release date | no data | March 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Current price | $312 | $23 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Phenom X4 9650 has 61% better value for money than Core 2 Extreme QX6700.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and Phenom X4 9650 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Bus support | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 285 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 450 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and Phenom X4 9650 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | AM2+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and Phenom X4 9650 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 by 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 by 24% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.37 | 1.11 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
The Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom X4 9650 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and Phenom X4 9650, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
