Ryzen 7 2700X vs Core 2 Quad Q9400
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by a whopping 716% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Ryzen 7 2700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2256 | 709 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.32 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Power efficiency | 1.34 | 9.93 |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | August 2008 (16 years ago) | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 4.35 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 37 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | LGA775 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Ryzen 7 2700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA |
| 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 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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 Ryzen 7 2700X 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 Ryzen 7 2700X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Ryzen 7 2700X.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.35 | 11.02 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 105 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9400 has 10.5% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 7 2700X, on the other hand, has a 716.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 7 2700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9400 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Ryzen 7 2700X, 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.
