A4 Micro-6400T vs Core 2 Extreme X7900

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Extreme X7900
2007
2 cores / 2 threads, 44 Watt
0.70
+2.9%
A4 Micro-6400T
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 4 Watt
0.68

Core 2 Extreme X7900 outperforms A4 Micro-6400T by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27092723
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core 2 ExtremeAMD A-Series
Power efficiency1.5114.30
Architecture codenameMerom (2006−2008)Mullins (2014)
Release date1 September 2007 (17 years ago)29 April 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$851no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed2.8 GHz1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache4 MB2048 KB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography65 nm28 nm
Die size143 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1.1V-1.375Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T 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 configuration1no data
SocketPPGA478FT3b
Power consumption (TDP)44 Watt4.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T. 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
AES-NI-+
FMA-FMA4
AVX-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
AMT+no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T 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 X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1DDR3-1333
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R3 Graphics
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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 X7900 0.70
+2.9%
A4 Micro-6400T 0.68

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 X7900 1104
+2%
A4 Micro-6400T 1082

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 X7900 3022
+142%
A4 Micro-6400T 1251

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 X7900 5764
+70.5%
A4 Micro-6400T 3380

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 X7900 2449
+47.2%
A4 Micro-6400T 1664

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 X7900 31.05
+49%
A4 Micro-6400T 46.27

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.70 0.68
Recency 1 September 2007 29 April 2014
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 44 Watt 4 Watt

Core 2 Extreme X7900 has a 2.9% higher aggregate performance score.

A4 Micro-6400T, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 1000% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A4 Micro-6400T, 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 X7900
Core 2 Extreme X7900
AMD A4 Micro-6400T
A4 Micro-6400T

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.


4.7 6 votes

Rate Core 2 Extreme X7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate A4 Micro-6400T on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Extreme X7900 or A4 Micro-6400T, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.