Xeon 3.20 vs Core 2 Quad Q9650
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9650 outperforms Xeon 3.20 by a whopping 426% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2390 | 3398 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 1.60 | 0.30 |
| Designer | Intel | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Gallatin (2003−2004) |
| Release date | August 2008 (17 years ago) | October 2003 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon 3.20 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 | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (per die) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | 237 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 820 million | 286 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 3.20 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 | 2 |
| Socket | LGA775 | 604 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 97 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon 3.20. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| 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 3.20 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 3.20 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 3.20. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.42 | 0.27 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 97 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9650 has a 425.9% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 188.9% more advanced lithography process, and 2.1% lower power consumption.
The Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon 3.20 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q9650 is a desktop processor while Xeon 3.20 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
