Core 2 Quad Q9450 vs Xeon X3470
Aggregate performance score
Xeon X3470 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9450 by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X3470 and Core 2 Quad Q9450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1839 | 2165 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | no data | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 1 July 2009 (15 years ago) | March 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon X3470 and Core 2 Quad Q9450 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 | no data | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 4 |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2.67 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 12 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | no data | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 73 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 820 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X3470 and Core 2 Quad Q9450 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 | no data | 775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3470 and Core 2 Quad Q9450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3470 and Core 2 Quad Q9450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3470 and Core 2 Quad Q9450.
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.11 | 1.41 |
Xeon X3470 has a 49.6% higher aggregate performance score.
The Xeon X3470 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9450 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon X3470 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Quad Q9450 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3470 and Core 2 Quad Q9450, 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.
