Xeon X3370 vs Core 2 Quad Q9650
Aggregated performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9650 outperforms Xeon X3370 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon X3370 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1984 | 1986 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.43 | 0.48 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | no data |
| Release date | August 2008 (15 years ago) | 1 July 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Current price | $75 | $100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 2 Quad Q9650 has 198% better value for money than Xeon X3370.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon X3370 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) | no data |
| Threads | 4 | no data |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (per die) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 12 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 820 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon X3370 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 | no data |
| Socket | LGA775 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon X3370. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| FSB parity | - | - |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon X3370 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon X3370 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon X3370. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | no data |
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.
Core 2 Quad Q9650 outperforms Xeon X3370 by 1% 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%
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%
Xeon X3370 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by 16% 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%
Xeon X3370 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by 31% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.60 | 1.59 |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon X3370.
Be aware that Core 2 Quad Q9650 is a desktop processor while Xeon X3370 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Xeon X3370, 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.
