Xeon Platinum 8358 vs Core 2 Duo T9500

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo T9500
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
1.13
Xeon Platinum 8358
2021
32 cores / 64 threads, 250 Watt
34.26
+2932%

Xeon Platinum 8358 outperforms Core 2 Duo T9500 by a whopping 2932% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo T9500 and Xeon Platinum 8358 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2380111
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel Core 2 Duono data
Power efficiency3.0612.97
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Ice Lake-SP (2021)
Release date10 January 2008 (16 years ago)6 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$530no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo T9500 and Xeon Platinum 8358 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 cores2 (Dual-core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads264
Base clock speed2.6 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz3.4 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cache128 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache6 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache6 MB L2 Cache48 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm10 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data81 °C
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
VID voltage range1V-1.25Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo T9500 and Xeon Platinum 8358 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 configurationno data2
SocketBGA479,PBGA479,PGA478,PPGA478FCLGA4189
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt250 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo T9500 and Xeon Platinum 8358. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core 2 Duo T9500 and Xeon Platinum 8358 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo T9500 and Xeon Platinum 8358 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo T9500 and Xeon Platinum 8358. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4-3200
Maximum memory sizeno data6 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Duo T9500 and Xeon Platinum 8358.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data64

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.

Core 2 Duo T9500 1.13
Xeon Platinum 8358 34.26
+2932%

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.

Core 2 Duo T9500 1799
Xeon Platinum 8358 54416
+2925%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.13 34.26
Recency 10 January 2008 6 April 2021
Physical cores 2 32
Threads 2 64
Chip lithography 45 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 250 Watt

Core 2 Duo T9500 has 614.3% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8358, on the other hand, has a 2931.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 350% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon Platinum 8358 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo T9500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Core 2 Duo T9500 is a notebook processor while Xeon Platinum 8358 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo T9500 and Xeon Platinum 8358, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Duo T9500
Core 2 Duo T9500
Intel Xeon Platinum 8358
Xeon Platinum 8358

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.4 190 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo T9500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 16 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8358 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo T9500 or Xeon Platinum 8358, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.