Core 2 Extreme QX9300 vs Xeon Gold 6144

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6144
2017
8 cores / 16 threads, 150 Watt
12.83
+1006%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
1.16

Xeon Gold 6144 outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX9300 by a whopping 1006% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6144 and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking6052377
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.23no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesIntel Xeon GoldCore 2 Extreme
Power efficiency7.942.39
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2019)Penryn (2008−2011)
Release date11 July 2017 (7 years ago)August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,925no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6144 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads164
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.53 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz2.53 GHz
Bus rateno data1066 MHz
Multiplier35no data
L1 cache512 KB64 KB
L2 cache8 MB12 MB
L3 cache24.75 MB0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data2x 107 mm2
Maximum core temperature75 °C100 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage rangeno data1.05V-1.175V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6144 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 configuration4 (Multiprocessor)2
SocketFCLGA3647PGA478
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt45 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6144 and Core 2 Extreme QX9300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
TSX+-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
AMTno data+
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6144 and Core 2 Extreme QX9300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6144 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 Xeon Gold 6144 and Core 2 Extreme QX9300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666no data
Maximum memory size768 GBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth128.001 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 6144 and Core 2 Extreme QX9300.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes48no 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 Gold 6144 12.83
+1006%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 1.16

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 Gold 6144 19993
+1008%
Core 2 Extreme QX9300 1805

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.83 1.16
Physical cores 8 4
Threads 16 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 45 Watt

Xeon Gold 6144 has a 1006% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Gold 6144 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon Gold 6144 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6144 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 Xeon Gold 6144
Xeon Gold 6144
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.


4 4 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6144 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 Xeon Gold 6144 or Core 2 Extreme QX9300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.