Core 2 Quad Q9650 vs Xeon E5-2696 V3
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2696 V3 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by a whopping 796% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2696 V3 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 476 | 2007 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 53.65 | 1.43 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Haswell-EP (2014) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 8 September 2014 (9 years ago) | August 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Current price | $106 | $75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E5-2696 V3 has 3652% better value for money than Core 2 Quad Q9650.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2696 V3 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 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 | 18 (Octadeca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 36 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 6 MB (per die) |
| L3 cache | 45 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 356 mm2 | 2x 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 71 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 77 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,600 million | 820 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2696 V3 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | 2011-3 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 145 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2696 V3 and Core 2 Quad Q9650. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | no data |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| TSX | + | no data |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2696 V3 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2696 V3 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2696 V3 and Core 2 Quad Q9650. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR42133 MHz Quad-channel | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2696 V3 and Core 2 Quad Q9650.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 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.
Xeon E5-2696 V3 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by 796% based on our aggregate 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%
Xeon E5-2696 V3 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by 797% in Passmark.
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 E5-2696 V3 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by 192% 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 E5-2696 V3 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by 656% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.34 | 1.60 |
| Physical cores | 18 | 4 |
| Threads | 36 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 145 Watt | 95 Watt |
The Xeon E5-2696 V3 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2696 V3 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Quad Q9650 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2696 V3 and Core 2 Quad Q9650, 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.
