EPYC 7H12 vs Core 2 Extreme QX6850

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Extreme QX6850
2007
4 cores / 4 threads, 130 Watt
1.44
EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
43.84
+2944%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by a whopping 2944% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking218848
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesCore 2 Extreme (Desktop)AMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.0514.82
Architecture codenameKentsfield (2007)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release dateno data18 September 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and EPYC 7H12 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads4128
Base clock speedno data2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
Multiplierno data26
L1 cache64K (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache8 MB (shared)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography65 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size2x 143 mm2192 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)64 °Cno data
Number of transistors582 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and EPYC 7H12 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 configuration12 (Multiprocessor)
Socket775TR4
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

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 1.44
EPYC 7H12 43.84
+2944%

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.

Core 2 Extreme QX6850 2292
EPYC 7H12 69633
+2938%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.44 43.84
Physical cores 4 64
Threads 4 128
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 280 Watt

Core 2 Extreme QX6850 has 115.4% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7H12, on the other hand, has a 2944.4% higher aggregate performance score, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Extreme QX6850 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and EPYC 7H12, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850
Core 2 Extreme QX6850
AMD EPYC 7H12
EPYC 7H12

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 52 votes

Rate Core 2 Extreme QX6850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 452 votes

Rate EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Extreme QX6850 or EPYC 7H12, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.