A8-3510MX vs Core 2 Extreme X7900
Aggregate performance score
A8-3510MX outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by a considerable 42% 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 | 3092 | 2837 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Extreme | AMD A-Series |
| Power efficiency | 0.61 | 0.87 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 1 September 2007 (18 years ago) | 14 June 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $851 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A8-3510MX: 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.1V-1.375V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A8-3510MX 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 | PPGA478 | FS1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A8-3510MX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G |
| 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 A8-3510MX 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 A8-3510MX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and A8-3510MX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6620G (444 MHz) |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.66 | 0.94 |
| Recency | 1 September 2007 | 14 June 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 45 Watt |
Core 2 Extreme X7900 has 2% lower power consumption.
A8-3510MX, on the other hand, has a 42% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 103% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD A8-3510MX is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 2 Extreme X7900 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
