Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) vs Core 2 Extreme QX6850
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2073 | 1988 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.69 | 1.93 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Deneb (2009−2011) |
| Release date | no data | November 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Current price | $385 | $88 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 has 39% better value for money than Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W).
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) 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 | 3 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Bus support | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 258 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 758 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) 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 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 125 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W). Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
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.
Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 11% 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%
Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 11% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.48 | 1.64 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 125 Watt |
The Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W), 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.
