Core 2 Extreme X7900 vs Xeon X5670

Aggregate performance score

Xeon X5670
2010
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.84
+449%
Core 2 Extreme X7900
2007
2 cores / 2 threads, 44 Watt
0.70

Xeon X5670 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by a whopping 449% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X5670 and Core 2 Extreme X7900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14552709
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.06no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesXeon (Desktop)Intel Core 2 Extreme
Power efficiency3.831.51
Architecture codenameWestmere-EP (2010−2011)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date16 March 2010 (14 years ago)1 September 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$67$851

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon X5670 and Core 2 Extreme X7900 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads122
Base clock speed2.93 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.33 GHz2.8 GHz
Bus rate6400 MHz800 MHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)4 MB
L3 cache12 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size239 mm2143 mm2
Maximum core temperature81 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1,170 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data1.1V-1.375V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X5670 and Core 2 Extreme X7900 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 configuration21
SocketFCLGA1366,LGA1366PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt44 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5670 and Core 2 Extreme X7900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States+-
Demand Based Switching+-
PAE40 Bitno data
AMTno data+
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Xeon X5670 and Core 2 Extreme X7900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5670 and Core 2 Extreme X7900 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 X5670 and Core 2 Extreme X7900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1
Maximum memory size288 GBno data
Max memory channels3no data
Maximum memory bandwidth32 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5670 and Core 2 Extreme X7900.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

Xeon X5670 3.84
+449%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 0.70

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 X5670 6105
+453%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 1104

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.

Xeon X5670 491
+26.9%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 387

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.

Xeon X5670 2280
+265%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 625

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.

Xeon X5670 3698
+22.4%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 3022

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.

Xeon X5670 19954
+246%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 5764

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.

Xeon X5670 5794
+137%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 2449

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.84 0.70
Recency 16 March 2010 1 September 2007
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 12 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 44 Watt

Xeon X5670 has a 448.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

Core 2 Extreme X7900, on the other hand, has 115.9% lower power consumption.

The Xeon X5670 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme X7900 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon X5670 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Extreme X7900 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5670 and Core 2 Extreme X7900, 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 X5670
Xeon X5670
Intel Core 2 Extreme X7900
Core 2 Extreme X7900

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.


4.3 475 votes

Rate Xeon X5670 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 6 votes

Rate Core 2 Extreme X7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X5670 or Core 2 Extreme X7900, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.