Core 2 Quad Q9400 vs Xeon D-1537

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon D-1537
2015
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
4.69
+250%
Core 2 Quad Q9400
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.34

Xeon D-1537 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9400 by a whopping 250% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon D-1537 and Core 2 Quad Q9400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking12712241
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.81no data
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon Dno data
Power efficiency12.681.33
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Yorkfield (2007−2009)
Release date1 November 2015 (9 years ago)August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$470no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon D-1537 and Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads164
Base clock speed1.7 GHz2.66 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz2.67 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rateno data1333 MHz
Multiplier17no data
L1 cache64K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)6 MB (shared)
L3 cache1.5 MB (per core)0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm45 nm
Die size246.24 mm22x 81 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)80 °C71 °C
Number of transistors3,200 million456 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.3625V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon D-1537 and Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1667LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon D-1537 and Core 2 Quad Q9400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2no data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology2.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
TSX+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Demand Based Switchingno data-
GPIO+no data
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Xeon D-1537 and Core 2 Quad Q9400 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 Xeon D-1537 and Core 2 Quad Q9400 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon D-1537 and Core 2 Quad Q9400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4, DDR3DDR1, DDR2, DDR3
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth34.124 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon D-1537 and Core 2 Quad Q9400.

PCIe version2.0/3.0no data
PCI Express lanes24no data
USB revision2.0/3.0no data
Total number of SATA ports6no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN+no data
UART+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.

Xeon D-1537 4.69
+250%
Core 2 Quad Q9400 1.34

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.

Xeon D-1537 7444
+249%
Core 2 Quad Q9400 2133

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.69 1.34
Physical cores 8 4
Threads 16 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 95 Watt

Xeon D-1537 has a 250% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

The Xeon D-1537 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon D-1537 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Quad Q9400 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon D-1537 and Core 2 Quad Q9400, 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 Xeon D-1537
Xeon D-1537
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400
Core 2 Quad Q9400

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.


1 1 vote

Rate Xeon D-1537 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 1552 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon D-1537 or Core 2 Quad Q9400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.