Ryzen Threadripper 2950X vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX9300 by a whopping 1538% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2675 | 447 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.30 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Core 2 Extreme | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | no data | 9.96 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | ZEN+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | August 2008 (17 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $899 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.53 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.53 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 12 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.05V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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 | 2 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | PGA478 | Socket TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| 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 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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 Threadripper 2950X 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 Threadripper 2950X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Quad-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 93.867 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.02 | 16.71 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 180 Watt |
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 has 300% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, on the other hand, has a 1538.2% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9300 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
