EPYC 7H12 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9400
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.35
EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
43.84
+3147%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by a whopping 3147% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking225648
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.3414.82
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)18 September 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads4128
Base clock speed2.66 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.67 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
Multiplierno data26
L1 cache64K (per core)4 MB
L2 cache6 MB (shared)32 MB
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size2x 81 mm2192 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors456 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 configuration12 (Multiprocessor)
SocketLGA775TR4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 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
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 Q9400 and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 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.

Core 2 Quad Q9400 1.35
EPYC 7H12 43.84
+3147%

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 Quad Q9400 2138
EPYC 7H12 69633
+3157%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.35 43.84
Physical cores 4 64
Threads 4 128
Chip lithography 45 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 280 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9400 has 194.7% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7H12, on the other hand, has a 3147.4% higher aggregate performance score, 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 Q9400 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q9400 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and EPYC 7H12, 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 Quad Q9400
Core 2 Quad Q9400
AMD EPYC 7H12
EPYC 7H12

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.


4.3 1573 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q9400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 452 votes

Rate EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9400 or EPYC 7H12, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.