A10-5750M vs Core 2 Extreme QX6850
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 outperforms A10-5750M by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A10-5750M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2073 | 2124 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.69 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) | AMD A-Series |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Richland (2013−2014) |
| Release date | no data | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $385 | $198 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A10-5750M 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 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus support | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A10-5750M 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 | FS1r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A10-5750M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA, DDR3-1866 Controller |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A10-5750M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A10-5750M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 8650G |
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 QX6850 outperforms A10-5750M by 5% 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 QX6850 outperforms A10-5750M by 5% in Passmark.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 outperforms A10-5750M by 20% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 outperforms A10-5750M by 70% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 outperforms A10-5750M by 37% in 3DMark06 CPU.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 outperforms A10-5750M by 47% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.48 | 1.41 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 35 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A10-5750M.
Note that Core 2 Extreme QX6850 is a desktop processor while A10-5750M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A10-5750M, 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.
