Xeon Silver 4516Y vs Core 2 Quad Q9505S
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Release date | 1 July 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 45 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 76 °C | 81 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y 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.
| Socket | LGA775 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 185 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4400 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 80 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 July 2009 | 1 October 2023 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 24 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 185 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9505S has 184.6% lower power consumption.
Xeon Silver 4516Y, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 14 years, and 500% more physical cores.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q9505S is a desktop processor while Xeon Silver 4516Y is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9505S and Xeon Silver 4516Y, 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.
