A9-9420e vs Core 2 Extreme X7800

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Extreme X7800
2007
2 cores / 2 threads, 44 Watt
0.72
+2.9%
A9-9420e
2018
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.70

Core 2 Extreme X7800 outperforms A9-9420e by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme X7800 and A9-9420e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26912705
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core 2 ExtremeAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency1.554.42
Architecture codenameMerom XE (2007)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date17 July 2007 (17 years ago)1 June 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$851no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme X7800 and A9-9420e 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.6 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.6 GHzno data
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache4 MB1 MB
L3 cache4 MB L2 Cacheno data
Chip lithography65 nm28 nm
Die size143 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C90 °C
Number of transistors291 Million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1.1V-1.375Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme X7800 and A9-9420e 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.

SocketPPGA478BGA
Power consumption (TDP)44 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme X7800 and A9-9420e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataVirtualization,
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Extreme X7800 and A9-9420e 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 X7800 and A9-9420e are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme X7800 and A9-9420e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)

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 Extreme X7800 0.72
+2.9%
A9-9420e 0.70

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 Extreme X7800 1138
+2.8%
A9-9420e 1107

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.72 0.70
Recency 17 July 2007 1 June 2018
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 44 Watt 15 Watt

Core 2 Extreme X7800 has a 2.9% higher aggregate performance score.

A9-9420e, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 193.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Extreme X7800 and A9-9420e.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme X7800 and A9-9420e, 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 X7800
Core 2 Extreme X7800
AMD A9-9420e
A9-9420e

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Core 2 Extreme X7800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 149 votes

Rate A9-9420e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Extreme X7800 or A9-9420e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.