Ryzen 7 3700X vs Core 2 Extreme X7900
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by a whopping 1955% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Ryzen 7 3700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2599 | 465 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 39.08 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Extreme | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 1 September 2007 (16 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $851 | $329 |
| Current price | $170 (0.2x MSRP) | $203 (0.6x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Ryzen 7 3700X 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus support | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
| VID voltage range | 1.1V-1.375V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Ryzen 7 3700X 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | PPGA478 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Ryzen 7 3700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no 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 |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Ryzen 7 3700X 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 Ryzen 7 3700X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Ryzen 7 3700X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 51.196 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
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.
Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by 1955% 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%
Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by 1944% 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%
Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by 328% 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%
Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by 1196% 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%
Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by 93% 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%
Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by 602% 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%
Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by 464% 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 outperforms Ryzen 7 3700X by 737% in wPrime 32.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.71 | 14.59 |
| Recency | 1 September 2007 | 7 July 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Cost | $851 | $329 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Ryzen 7 3700X 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 Ryzen 7 3700X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Ryzen 7 3700X, 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.
