C-70 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9650
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and C-70 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD C-Series |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Ontario (2011−2012) |
| Release date | November 2007 (17 years ago) | 1 September 2012 (12 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 1.33 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 64 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 820 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9650 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 9 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and C-70. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX(+), 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 |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 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 QX9650 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 QX9650 and C-70. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 Single-channel |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6290 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 9 Watt |
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
C-70, on the other hand, has a 12.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1344.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and C-70. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Extreme QX9650 is a desktop processor while C-70 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and C-70, 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.
