Core 2 Extreme QX9770 vs Core 2 Extreme X7900
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Extreme QX9770 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by a whopping 314% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2725 | 1667 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Extreme | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.51 | 2.02 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 1 September 2007 (17 years ago) | March 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $851 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 12 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 2x 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 55 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 820 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.1V-1.375V | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770 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 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 136 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| AMT | + | no data |
| FSB parity | - | - |
Security technologies
Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.70 | 2.90 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 136 Watt |
Core 2 Extreme X7900 has 209.1% lower power consumption.
Core 2 Extreme QX9770, on the other hand, has a 314.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme X7900 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core 2 Extreme X7900 is a notebook processor while Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770, 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.
