Xeon 3.0 vs Core 2 Quad Q9650
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon 3.0 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2101 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 1.55 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Irwindale (2004) |
| Release date | August 2008 (16 years ago) | June 2004 (20 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon 3.0 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 16 KB |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (per die) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | 169 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 820 million | 178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon 3.0 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 | 604 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 135 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon 3.0. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon 3.0 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 Q9650 and Xeon 3.0 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 Xeon 3.0. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 135 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9650 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 42.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon 3.0. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q9650 is a desktop processor while Xeon 3.0 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon 3.0, 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.
