Core 2 Quad Q9650 vs EPYC 9754
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9754 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 by a whopping 3954% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9754 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 12 | 2118 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.09 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 16.54 | 1.55 |
| Architecture codename | Bergamo (2023) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 13 June 2023 (1 year ago) | August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $11,900 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9754 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 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 | 128 | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 256 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.25 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1333 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 6 MB (per die) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 8x 73 mm2 | 2x 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 71,000 million | 820 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9754 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9754 and Core 2 Quad Q9650. 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 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 9754 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 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 EPYC 9754 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 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 EPYC 9754 and Core 2 Quad Q9650. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9754 and Core 2 Quad Q9650.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no 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.
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 | 63.24 | 1.56 |
| Physical cores | 128 | 4 |
| Threads | 256 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 95 Watt |
EPYC 9754 has a 3953.8% higher aggregate performance score, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
Core 2 Quad Q9650, on the other hand, has 278.9% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 9754 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9650 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9754 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Quad Q9650 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9754 and Core 2 Quad Q9650, 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.
