A6-4400M vs Core 2 Extreme X7900

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Extreme X7900
2007
2 cores / 2 threads, 44 Watt
0.71
+9.2%

Core 2 Extreme X7900 outperforms A6-4400M by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A6-4400M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking26002651
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core 2 ExtremeAMD A-Series
Architecture codenameMerom (2006−2008)Trinity (2012−2013)
Release date1 September 2007 (16 years ago)15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$851no data
Current price$170 (0.2x MSRP)$95

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A6-4400M 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.8 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus support800 MHzno data
L1 cache128 KB96 KB
L2 cache4 MB1 MB (shared)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm32 nm
Die size143 mm2246 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo
VID voltage range1.1V-1.375Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A6-4400M 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 configuration11
SocketPPGA478FS1r2
Power consumption (TDP)44 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A6-4400M. 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, FMA
AES-NIno data+
FMAno data+
AVXno data+
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
StatusDiscontinuedno data

Security technologies

Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A6-4400M 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 A6-4400M are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A6-4400M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1unknown

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 7520G

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 0.71
+9.2%
A6-4400M 0.65

Core 2 Extreme X7900 outperforms A6-4400M by 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Core 2 Extreme X7900 1104
+9.3%
A6-4400M 1010

Core 2 Extreme X7900 outperforms A6-4400M by 9% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Core 2 Extreme X7900 387
+23.6%
A6-4400M 313

Core 2 Extreme X7900 outperforms A6-4400M by 24% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Core 2 Extreme X7900 625
+56.3%
A6-4400M 400

Core 2 Extreme X7900 outperforms A6-4400M by 56% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Core 2 Extreme X7900 3022
+31.8%
A6-4400M 2292

Core 2 Extreme X7900 outperforms A6-4400M by 32% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Core 2 Extreme X7900 5764
+69.2%
A6-4400M 3407

Core 2 Extreme X7900 outperforms A6-4400M by 69% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Core 2 Extreme X7900 2449
+35.8%
A6-4400M 1804

Core 2 Extreme X7900 outperforms A6-4400M by 36% in 3DMark06 CPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

Core 2 Extreme X7900 31.05
+50.8%
A6-4400M 46.82

A6-4400M outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by 51% in wPrime 32.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.71 0.65
Recency 1 September 2007 15 May 2012
Chip lithography 65 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 44 Watt 35 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A6-4400M.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A6-4400M, 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 A6-4400M
A6-4400M

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
3.3 173 votes

Rate A6-4400M 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 A6-4400M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.