Ryzen Threadripper 1940X vs Core 2 Extreme QX6850

VS

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2170not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesCore 2 Extreme (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency1.05no data
Architecture codenameKentsfield (2007)Zen (2017−2020)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)29 July 2017 (7 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)14 (Tetradeca-Core)
Threads428
Base clock speedno data3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz4 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cacheno data512 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data32 MB
Chip lithography65 nm14 nm
Die sizeno data213 mm2
Number of transistorsno data9,600 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X 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 data1
Socketno dataSP3r2
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt180 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) QX6850 and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4 Quad-channel

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 4 14
Threads 4 28
Chip lithography 65 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 180 Watt

Core 2 Extreme QX6850 has 38.5% lower power consumption.

Ryzen Threadripper 1940X, on the other hand, has 250% more physical cores and 600% more threads, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X, 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 Extreme QX6850
Core 2 Extreme QX6850
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1940X
Ryzen Threadripper 1940X

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.


3.4 52 votes

Rate Core 2 Extreme QX6850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 1940X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Extreme QX6850 or Ryzen Threadripper 1940X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.