Athlon II X4 641 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400
Aggregated performance score
Athlon II X4 641 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Athlon II X4 641 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2105 | 2026 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 3.51 | 0.15 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | August 2008 (15 years ago) | 6 February 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $62 | $19.92 |
Value for money
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 2 Quad Q9400 has 2240% better value for money than Athlon II X4 641.
Technical specs
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Athlon II X4 641 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 | 2.66 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Athlon II X4 641 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 | LGA775 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Athlon II X4 641. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Athlon II X4 641 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 Q9400 and Athlon II X4 641 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Athlon II X4 641. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 |
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.
Athlon II X4 641 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by 9% based on our aggregated 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%
Athlon II X4 641 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by 9% 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%
Athlon II X4 641 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by 11% 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%
Athlon II X4 641 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by 33% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 1.37 | 1.50 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 100 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Athlon II X4 641. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Athlon II X4 641, 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.
