Core i3-3220 vs Core 2 Extreme X9100
Aggregate performance score
i3-3220 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X9100 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2166 | 2085 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 64 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.22 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Extreme | Intel Core i3 (Desktop) |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (15 years ago) | 3 September 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $851 | $117 |
| Current price | $120 (0.1x MSRP) | $46 (0.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.06 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.06 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus support | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 3 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 94 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 65 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 65 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | 1.05-1.2625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220 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 | PGA478 | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | no data | - |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FDI | no data | + |
| AMT | + | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | - |
| Identity Protection | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 2500 |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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 i3-3220 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X9100 by 10% 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 i3-3220 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X9100 by 10% 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 i3-3220 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X9100 by 20% 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 i3-3220 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X9100 by 41% 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 i3-3220 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X9100 by 21% 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 i3-3220 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X9100 by 37% 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 i3-3220 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X9100 by 43% 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 X9100 outperforms Core i3-3220 by 214% in wPrime 32.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.33 | 1.46 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 3 September 2012 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Cost | $851 | $117 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 55 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220.
Be aware that Core 2 Extreme X9100 is a notebook processor while Core i3-3220 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme X9100 and Core i3-3220, 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.
