Athlon 64 X2 4400+ vs Core 2 Quad Q9000
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9000 outperforms Athlon 64 X2 4400+ by a whopping 133% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2480 | 2982 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Quad | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 2.07 | 0.61 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Windsor (2006−2007) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (16 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $348 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 256K |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 512K |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 220 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 233 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.05V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PGA478 | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ 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 Quad Q9000 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | 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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.98 | 0.42 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 65 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9000 has a 133.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 44.4% lower power consumption.
The Core 2 Quad Q9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ in performance tests.
Be aware that Core 2 Quad Q9000 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Athlon 64 X2 4400+, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
