C-70 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300

VS

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and C-70 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2374not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesCore 2 ExtremeAMD C-Series
Power efficiency2.39no data
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Ontario (2011−2012)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)1 September 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and C-70 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.53 GHz1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.53 GHz1.33 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache12 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm40 nm
Die size2x 107 mm275 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage range1.05V-1.175Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and C-70 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 configuration21
SocketPGA478FT1 BGA 413-Ball
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt9 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and C-70. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V, Radeon HD 6290 (276-400 MHz)
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 C-70 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 C-70 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and C-70. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3 Single-channel

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6290

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.



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
+473%
C-70 315

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.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 3114
+290%
C-70 798

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.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 10882
+628%
C-70 1495

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.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 3780
+383%
C-70 782

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 15.74
+524%
C-70 98.2

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.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 3
+608%
C-70 0

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 9 Watt

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

C-70, on the other hand, has a 12.5% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and C-70. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and C-70, 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 C-70
C-70

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 91 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 94 votes

Rate C-70 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 C-70, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.