Core 2 Extreme X6800 vs EPYC 8224P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 8224P outperforms Core 2 Extreme X6800 by a whopping 3955% 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 | 252 | 3046 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 30.72 | 0.01 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 6.84 | 0.36 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | Conroe XE (2006) |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) | 27 July 2006 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $855 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 8224P has 307100% better value for money than Core 2 Extreme X6800.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8224P and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) X6800 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 48 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.55 GHz | 2.933 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 0.93 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1066 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 4 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 2x 73 mm2 | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | 60 °C |
| Number of transistors | 17,750 million | 291 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8224P and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) X6800 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 | SP6 | 775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 75 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8224P and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) X6800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8224P and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) X6800 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8224P and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) X6800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8224P and Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) X6800.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | 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 | 25.95 | 0.64 |
| Recency | 18 September 2023 | 27 July 2006 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 2 |
| Threads | 48 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 75 Watt |
EPYC 8224P has a 3955% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
Core 2 Extreme X6800, on the other hand, has 113% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 8224P is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 8224P is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Extreme X6800 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
