EPYC 7H12 vs Core 2 Quad Q9000
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9000 by a whopping 4323% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9000 and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2462 | 47 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Quad | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 2.08 | 14.82 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) | 18 September 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $348 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9000 and EPYC 7H12 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1066 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 26 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.05V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9000 and EPYC 7H12 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 | no data | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | PGA478 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9000 and EPYC 7H12 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 Quad Q9000 and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
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 | 1.01 | 44.67 |
| Recency | 1 January 2009 | 18 September 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 64 |
| Threads | 4 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 280 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9000 has 522.2% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7H12, on the other hand, has a 4322.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core 2 Quad Q9000 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9000 and EPYC 7H12, 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.
