A10-4657M vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Extreme QX9300
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
1.14
+2.7%
A10-4657M
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.11

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 outperforms A10-4657M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and A10-4657M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23922411
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesCore 2 ExtremeAMD A-Series
Power efficiency2.403.00
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Trinity (2012−2013)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)1 April 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and A10-4657M 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.53 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.53 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KBno data
L2 cache12 MB4 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size2x 107 mm2246 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data1303 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage range1.05V-1.175Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and A10-4657M 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 configuration2no data
SocketPGA478BGA
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and A10-4657M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
AMT+no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and A10-4657M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and A10-4657M are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 7660G (497 - 686 MHz)

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 QX9300 1.14
+2.7%
A10-4657M 1.11

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 QX9300 1805
+2.6%
A10-4657M 1759

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.14 1.11
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 35 Watt

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 has a 2.7% higher aggregate performance score.

A10-4657M, on the other hand, has a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 28.6% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and A10-4657M.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and A10-4657M, 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 QX9300
Core 2 Extreme QX9300
AMD A10-4657M
A10-4657M

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.


4.1 92 votes

Rate Core 2 Extreme QX9300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate A10-4657M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Extreme QX9300 or A10-4657M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.