Core 2 Duo SU9400 vs Phenom II X4 905e
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X4 905e outperforms Core 2 Duo SU9400 by a whopping 281% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X4 905e and Core 2 Duo SU9400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2333 | 3092 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | 4x Phenom II (Desktop) | Intel Core 2 Duo |
| Power efficiency | 1.77 | 3.01 |
| Architecture codename | Deneb (2009−2011) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 2 June 2009 (15 years ago) | 20 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $212 | $262 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 905e and Core 2 Duo SU9400 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 3 MB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 3 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.05V-1.15V |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 905e and Core 2 Duo SU9400 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 | AM3 | BGA956 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 905e and Core 2 Duo SU9400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 45 nm, 1.25 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Phenom II X4 905e and Core 2 Duo SU9400 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 Phenom II X4 905e and Core 2 Duo SU9400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 905e and Core 2 Duo SU9400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 905e and Core 2 Duo SU9400.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.22 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 2 June 2009 | 20 August 2008 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 10 Watt |
Phenom II X4 905e has a 281.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Core 2 Duo SU9400, on the other hand, has 550% lower power consumption.
The Phenom II X4 905e is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo SU9400 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom II X4 905e is a desktop processor while Core 2 Duo SU9400 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 905e and Core 2 Duo SU9400, 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.
