Core 2 Extreme X9100 vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX outperforms Core 2 Extreme X9100 by a whopping 3137% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Core 2 Extreme X9100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 53 | 2241 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | Intel Core 2 Extreme |
| Architecture codename | Chagall PRO (2022) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 8 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 15 July 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $851 |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Core 2 Extreme X9100 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 | 3.8 GHz | 3.06 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 3.06 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1066 MHz |
| Multiplier | 38 | no data |
| L1 cache | 1536 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 12 MB | 6 MB |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 4x 81 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 16,600 million | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.05-1.2625V |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Core 2 Extreme X9100 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 | WRX8 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 44 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Core 2 Extreme X9100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| AMT | no data | + |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Core 2 Extreme X9100 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 Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Core 2 Extreme X9100 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Core 2 Extreme X9100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Core 2 Extreme X9100.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 43.70 | 1.35 |
| Recency | 8 March 2022 | 15 July 2008 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 2 |
| Threads | 48 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 44 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX has a 3137% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
Core 2 Extreme X9100, on the other hand, has 536.4% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme X9100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Extreme X9100 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX and Core 2 Extreme X9100, 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.
