Athlon MP 2000+ vs Core 2 Extreme QX9775
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Athlon MP 2000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD Athlon MP |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | K7 (2000−2004) |
| Release date | March 2008 (16 years ago) | 27 August 2002 (22 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $319 |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Athlon MP 2000+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 1.67 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | FSB |
| Bus rate | 1600 MHz | 266 MT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 12.5 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | 85 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 63 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 820 million | 37 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Athlon MP 2000+ 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 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | LGA771 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 58.2 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Athlon MP 2000+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Athlon MP 2000+ 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 Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Athlon MP 2000+ are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Athlon MP 2000+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 GB |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 58 Watt |
Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 188.9% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon MP 2000+, on the other hand, has 158.6% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Athlon MP 2000+. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Extreme QX9775 is a desktop processor while Athlon MP 2000+ is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Athlon MP 2000+, 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.
