A8-3870K vs Core 2 Extreme QX6850
Aggregated performance score
A8-3870K outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A8-3870K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2040 | 2036 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 2.69 | 3.20 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | no data | 20 December 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $385 | $32 |
Value for money
Performance per price, higher is better.
A8-3870K has 19% better value for money than Core 2 Extreme QX6850.
Technical specs
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A8-3870K 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 | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3 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 | 228 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A8-3870K 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 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 100 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A8-3870K are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A8-3870K. 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 6550D |
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.
A8-3870K outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 1% based on our aggregated 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%
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 1.47 | 1.48 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 100 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A8-3870K. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and A8-3870K, 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.
