Core 2 Extreme QX9300 vs Core Ultra 7 155H

Aggregate performance score

Core Ultra 7 155H
2023
16 cores / 22 threads, 28 Watt
15.78
+1284%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
1.14

Core Ultra 7 155H outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX9300 by a whopping 1284% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking4252379
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Meteor Lake-HCore 2 Extreme
Power efficiency53.332.40
Architecture codenameMeteor Lake-H (2023)Penryn (2008−2011)
Release date14 December 2023 (less than a year ago)August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$503no data

Detailed specifications

Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads224
Base clock speed3.8 GHz2.53 GHz
Boost clock speed4.8 GHz2.53 GHz
Bus rateno data1066 MHz
L1 cache112 KB (per core)64 KB
L2 cache2 MB (per core)12 MB
L3 cache24 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithographyIntel 4 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data2x 107 mm2
Maximum core temperature110 °C100 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage rangeno data1.05V-1.175V

Compatibility

Information on Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 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
SocketFCBGA2049PGA478
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt45 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
TSX+-
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switchingno data-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
AMTno data+
FSB parityno data-
Deep Learning Boost+-
Supported AI Software FrameworksOpenVINO™, WindowsML, ONNX RT-

Security technologies

Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 are enumerated here.

VT-d+no data
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5no data
Maximum memory size96 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® Arc™ graphicsno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency2.25 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported4no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

Max resolution over HDMI 1.44096 x 2304 @ 60Hz (HDMI 2.1 TMDS) 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz (HDMI2.1 FRL)no data
Max resolution over eDP3840x2400 @ 120Hzno data
Max resolution over DisplayPort7680 x 4320 @ 60Hzno data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12.2no data
OpenGL4.6no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300.

PCIe version5.0no data
PCI Express lanes8no data
PCI support5.0 and 4.0no data

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.

Ultra 7 155H 15.78
+1284%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 1.14

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.

Ultra 7 155H 25071
+1289%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 1805

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Ultra 7 155H 9828
+216%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 3114

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Ultra 7 155H 56242
+417%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 10882

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Ultra 7 155H 13031
+245%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 3780

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Ultra 7 155H 3.61
+336%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 15.74

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Ultra 7 155H 30
+1044%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 3

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.78 1.14
Physical cores 16 4
Threads 22 4
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 45 Watt

Ultra 7 155H has a 1284.2% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 450% more threads, and 60.7% lower power consumption.

The Core Ultra 7 155H is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core Ultra 7 155H and Core 2 Extreme QX9300, 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 Ultra 7 155H
Core Ultra 7 155H
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9300
Core 2 Extreme QX9300

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.


3.8 523 votes

Rate Core Ultra 7 155H on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 91 vote

Rate Core 2 Extreme QX9300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core Ultra 7 155H or Core 2 Extreme QX9300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.