Atom C3958 vs Core 2 Quad Q9650
Aggregate performance score
Atom C3958 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Atom C3958 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2010 | 1618 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.43 | 0.57 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Atom |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Goldmont (2016−2017) |
| Release date | August 2008 (15 years ago) | 15 August 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
| Current price | $62 | $740 (1.6x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 2 Quad Q9650 has 151% better value for money than Atom C3958.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Atom C3958 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 896 KB |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (per die) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 83 °C |
| Number of transistors | 820 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Atom C3958 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 775 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 31 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Atom C3958. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Atom C3958 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Atom C3958. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3L-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Atom C3958.
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
Atom C3958 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by 73% based on our aggregate 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%
Atom C3958 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by 73% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.60 | 2.77 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 31 Watt |
Atom C3958 has a 73.1% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 206.5% lower power consumption.
The Atom C3958 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9650 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q9650 is a desktop processor while Atom C3958 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Atom C3958, 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.
