Core 2 Extreme QX9300 vs Athlon X4 860K
Aggregate performance score
Athlon X4 860K outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX9300 by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X4 860K and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1833 | 2363 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Core 2 Extreme |
| Power efficiency | 2.15 | 2.39 |
| Architecture codename | Kaveri (2014−2015) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 12 August 2014 (10 years ago) | August 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon X4 860K and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.53 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.53 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1066 MHz |
| L1 cache | 256K | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 12 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 245 mm2 | 2x 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,411 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.05V-1.175V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X4 860K and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 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 | 2 |
| Socket | FM2+ | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 860K and Core 2 Extreme QX9300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| AMT | no data | + |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon X4 860K and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 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 Athlon X4 860K and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 860K and Core 2 Extreme QX9300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-2133 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 860K and Core 2 Extreme QX9300.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| 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 | 2.24 | 1.18 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 45 Watt |
Athlon X4 860K has a 89.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.
Core 2 Extreme QX9300, on the other hand, has 111.1% lower power consumption.
The Athlon X4 860K is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon X4 860K is a desktop processor while Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 860K and Core 2 Extreme QX9300, 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.
