Ryzen 7 2700X vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Extreme QX9300
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
1.14
Ryzen 7 2700X
2018
8 cores / 16 threads, 105 Watt
11.02
+867%

Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX9300 by a whopping 867% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen 7 2700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2392709
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data9.33
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesCore 2 ExtremeAMD Ryzen 7
Power efficiency2.409.93
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Zen+ (2018−2019)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)19 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads416
Base clock speed2.53 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2.53 GHz4.35 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHz4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data37
L1 cache64 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache12 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm12 nm
Die size2x 107 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++
VID voltage range1.05V-1.175Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketPGA478AM4
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt105 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen 7 2700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataSSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA
AES-NI-+
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
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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 Ryzen 7 2700X 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 Ryzen 7 2700X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen 7 2700X.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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
Ryzen 7 2700X 11.02
+867%

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
Ryzen 7 2700X 17511
+870%

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
Ryzen 7 2700X 5256
+68.8%

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
Ryzen 7 2700X 34763
+219%

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
Ryzen 7 2700X 10643
+182%

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
Ryzen 7 2700X 3.48
+352%

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
Ryzen 7 2700X 19
+613%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.14 11.02
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 4 16
Chip lithography 45 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 105 Watt

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 has 133.3% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 7 2700X, on the other hand, has a 866.7% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 7 2700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 2700X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen 7 2700X, 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 Ryzen 7 2700X
Ryzen 7 2700X

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
4.4 2962 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 2700X 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 Ryzen 7 2700X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.