Ryzen Z1 vs Core 2 Quad Q9000
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Z1 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9000 by a whopping 1057% 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 | 2793 | 883 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Quad | Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040) |
| Power efficiency | 0.85 | 29.62 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Phoenix (Zen4) (2023) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (17 years ago) | May 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $348 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Ryzen Z1: 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) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 4.9 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 137 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.05V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Ryzen Z1 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 | FP8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Ryzen Z1. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Ryzen Z1 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 Ryzen Z1 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Ryzen Z1. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon 740M |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and Ryzen Z1.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.91 | 10.53 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 6 |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen Z1 has a 1057% higher aggregate performance score, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 1025% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen Z1 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000 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.
