A10-4657M vs Core 2 Quad Q9100
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9100 outperforms A10-4657M by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9100 and A10-4657M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2360 | 2427 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad | AMD A-Series |
| Power efficiency | 2.54 | 3.00 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | August 2008 (16 years ago) | 1 April 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9100 and A10-4657M 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.26 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.26 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (per die) | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1303 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.05V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9100 and A10-4657M 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 | 2 | no data |
| Socket | PGA478 | BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9100 and A10-4657M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| AMT | + | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9100 and A10-4657M 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 Q9100 and A10-4657M are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 7660G (497 - 686 MHz) |
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 | 1.20 | 1.10 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 35 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9100 has a 9.1% higher aggregate performance score.
A10-4657M, on the other hand, has a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 28.6% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Quad Q9100 and A10-4657M.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9100 and A10-4657M, 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.
