EPYC 9654P vs Core 2 Quad Q9450

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9450
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.38
EPYC 9654P
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
72.13
+5127%

EPYC 9654P outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9450 by a whopping 5127% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9450 and EPYC 9654P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22387
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.01
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.3718.96
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release dateMarch 2008 (16 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$10,625

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q9450 and EPYC 9654P 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)96
Threads4192
Base clock speed2.66 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.67 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache64K (per core)6 MB
L2 cache12 MB (shared)96 MB
L3 cache0 KB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size2x 107 mm212x 72 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors820 million78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q9450 and EPYC 9654P 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
SocketLGA775SP5
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9450 and EPYC 9654P. 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 Q9450 and EPYC 9654P 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 Q9450 and EPYC 9654P 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 Q9450 and EPYC 9654P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data6 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data460.8 GB/s

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9450 and EPYC 9654P.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

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 Q9450 1.38
EPYC 9654P 72.13
+5127%

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 Q9450 2186
EPYC 9654P 114570
+5141%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.38 72.13
Physical cores 4 96
Threads 4 192
Chip lithography 45 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 360 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9450 has 278.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654P, on the other hand, has a 5126.8% higher aggregate performance score, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9450 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q9450 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9450 and EPYC 9654P, 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 Q9450
Core 2 Quad Q9450
AMD EPYC 9654P
EPYC 9654P

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.


4 179 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q9450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 9 votes

Rate EPYC 9654P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9450 or EPYC 9654P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.