AMD A10-5800B vs Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 Comparison

The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and the AMD A10-5800B occupy very different corners of the desktop processor landscape. One is a high-end quad-core from Intel’s Core 2 era, aimed at enthusiasts who demanded maximum multi-threaded throughput. The other is a mainstream accelerated processing unit from AMD, built around a higher clock speed and integrated graphics. The database records show that both processors are end-of-life, but their benchmark profiles and specifications tell a distinct story for anyone considering them for legacy builds or comparison purposes.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 holds a modest lead in average benchmark score. Its average benchmark score is 813, while the AMD A10-5800B sits at 794. That is a difference of roughly 2.4% in favor of the Intel part, a meaningful gap in an era where every point counts. The QX9775 also places in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the A10-5800B’s 21st percentile. For multi-core rendering tasks, the QX9775 is the clear pick. It delivers a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 992, a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2363, and a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 238. The AMD part, by contrast, has no recorded multi-core Cinebench scores, so the data suggests that for heavy, multi-threaded workloads, the Intel chip’s older architecture still outperforms.

However, the A10-5800B is the better choice if you need an integrated graphics solution. Its Radeon HD 7660D is present, whereas the QX9775 has no integrated graphics at all. That means the AMD chip is a complete package in a single socket, while the Intel part requires a separate graphics card. For a system where additional hardware is not an option, the A10-5800B wins on practicality. The data also shows a higher base clock for the AMD part, at 3.80 GHz, compared to the QX9775’s 3.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.2 GHz exists solely on the AMD side. In single-threaded Geekbench records, the A10-5800B scores 459, while the QX9775 has no direct single-core Geekbench score, but from the Cinebench R20 single-core score of 139 and R23 single-core of 333, the Intel chip is not a slouch in that area either.

Pick the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 for raw multi-core compute and higher average performance, but only if a dedicated GPU is available. Pick the A10-5800B for a lower power draw, a higher clock speed, and an integrated GPU, accepting that its average score is lower. The data shows no head-to-head benchmarks between the two, so the verdict is based on their independent records.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has an average benchmark score of 813, while the AMD A10-5800B scores 794. This places the Intel part at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, and the AMD part at the 21st percentile.

Q: Does either processor have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the AMD A10-5800B includes a Radeon HD 7660D integrated GPU. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 does not have any integrated graphics, so it relies on a external graphics solution.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The AMD A10-5800B has a base clock of 3.8 GHz and a boost clock of 4.2 GHz. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has a base clock of 3.2 GHz and no boost clock listed. The AMD chip operates at a higher frequency.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has a much higher thermal design power (TDP) of 150 watts. The AMD A10-5800B has a TDP of 100 watts. This suggests the AMD part is more power-efficient per the recorded specs.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Intel chip supports DDR2 memory, with the exact type depending on the motherboard. The AMD chip supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s.

Q: Are they comparable in terms of release date?

A: No. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 was released on March 23, 2008. The AMD A10-5800B was released on October 1, 2012, over four years later. Both are now end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on completely different architectures. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 uses the Core 2 microarchitecture, under the codename Yorkfield. It is part of the Core 2 Extreme generation, specifically the Yorkfield XE family. The AMD A10-5800B uses the Piledriver architecture, which is the successor to the Bulldozer design, and its codename is Trinity. This places the AMD chip in the A10 series of the Trinity generation.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The Intel part is built on a 45 nm process node, while the AMD part uses a 32 nm process. This is a major difference in transistor density and power characteristics. Intel’s processor contains 820 million transistors, while AMD’s contains 1,303 million transistors, a higher count despite the older process node. The die size also differs: Intel’s is listed as 2x 107 mm², meaning two separate dies, while AMD’s is a single 246 mm² die.

Cache configuration is another key architectural difference. The Intel chip has a Level 1 cache of 64 KB per core, which for four cores sums to 256 KB. Its Level 2 cache is 6 MB per die, and with two dies, that suggests a total of 12 MB of L2 cache, though the pack lists it as "6 MB (per die)" for the L2. The AMD chip has a Level 1 cache of 192 KB in total, and a Level 2 cache of 4 MB, shared across all cores. Neither has a Level 3 cache. So the Intel part has a larger L2 cache capacity, but the AMD part shares its cache more dynamically between cores.

In terms of memory support, the Intel chip uses DDR2, which is a dual-channel memory bus, but its memory bus speed is not listed. The AMD chip uses DDR3, with a dual-channel bus, and a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Intel chip supports ECC memory, while the AMD does not. This makes the Intel more suitable for error-correcting workloads, but the AMD has a faster memory interface.

The PCIe generation is also different: the Intel supports PCIe Gen 1, while the AMD supports PCIe Gen 2. This affects expansion card bandwidth. The AMD also has an integrated GPU, the Radeon HD 7660D, while the Intel has none. The AMD’s multiplier is locked, meaning it cannot be overclocked via the multiplier, while the Intel’s multiplier is unlocked, which is a feature for enthusiast overclocking.

Specification Differences

The formal specifications show several key differences between the two parts. The Intel chip has a base clock of 3.2 GHz, and no boost clock listed. The AMD has a base clock of 3.8 GHz and a boost clock of 4.2 GHz. The TDP is 150 for the Intel and 100 for the AMD. The sockets are not interchangeable: the Intel uses an Intel Socket 771, while the AMD uses an AMD Socket FM2.

The memory support is different as noted, with the Intel using DDR2 (depending on motherboard) and the AMD using DDR3. The AMD has a memory bus of dual-channel and a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Intel does not have a listed bandwidth. The integrated graphics is only on the AMD side. The release dates are far apart, and the launch MSRP for the Intel is $1499, which is a high-premium price point, while the AMD has no launch MSRP listed.

The process node for the Intel is 45 nm with a foundry of Intel, while the AMD is 32 nm with a foundry of GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is 820 million for the Intel, and 1303 million for the AMD. The die size is 2x 107 mm² for the Intel, and 246 mm² for the AMD. The cache structure differs, with the Intel having a per-core L1 of 64 KB and per-die L2 of 6 MB, and the AMD having a total L1 of 192 KB and a shared L2 of 4 MB. The ECC support is present on the Intel, but not on the AMD.

The multiplier is unlocked on the Intel, but locked on the AMD. The production status is end-of-life for both. The release dates are 2008-03-23 for the Intel, and 2012-10-01 for the AMD. The part numbers are SLANYEU80574XL088N for the Intel, and AD580BWOA44HJ for the AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not have any direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two processors. Therefore, the comparison relies on their individual benchmark scores. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 excels in multi-core rendering tests. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score is 238. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 992, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2363. These scores show a consistent strength in multi-threaded tasks. In contrast, the AMD A10-5800B has no recorded Cinebench multi-core scores, so no direct comparison can be made there.

The AMD A10-5800B, instead, has Geekbench scores. Its Geekbench multicore score is 1128, and its Geekbench singlecore score is 459. The Intel chip does not have Geekbench scores in the pack, so the comparison is not direct. However, the Intel does have Cinebench single-core scores. Its Cinebench R20 single-core is 139, and its Cinebench R23 single-core is 333. These are lower than what the AMD’s Geekbench single-core might suggest, but they are different tests.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context. The Intel QX9775 has an average score of 813, exactly matching the Intel Core i7-5550U. It is 0.2% higher than the Intel Xeon X3440 (815), and 0.4% higher than the Intel Core i5-L16G7 (816). It is 0.5% lower than the AMD A10-6800K (809). This shows that the QX9775 sits right with some low-power laptop and desktop parts, but it is not a massive outlier.

The AMD A10-5800B has an average score of 794. It is 0.1% lower than the AMD A6-9400 (794), 0.3% lower than the AMD A10-7850K (796), and 0.3% lower than the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G (797). It is 0.5% lower than the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (790), which is the direct predecessor to the QX9775 in the same family. That suggests that the QX9775’s slight lead over the Q10-5800B is consistent with its position relative to the QX-9770.

The biggest win for the Intel is in raw multi-core throughput. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2363 is a strong result for a 2008 processor, indicating it can handle modern rendering loads far better than the AMD’s lack of such scores suggests. For the AMD, the biggest win is in clock speed and integration. A base clock of 3.8 GHz and boost of 4.2 GHz are higher than the Intel’s 3.2. The integrated Radeon HD 7660D eliminates the need for a discrete GPU, which is a significant advantage for a compact or legacy system.

In summary, the data shows the Intel QX9775 is a stronger compute processor, but the AMD A10-5800B offers a higher clocked, more integrated package with a lower TDP. The 45 nm Intel part may be older, but its 12 MB of L2 cache (from two 6 MB dies) and ECC support make it a competent performer for its era. The AMD’s 32 nm process and 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth do not translate into a higher average score, but they do offer a more modern feature set. For a user with a Socket 771 board, the QX9775 is the data-driven pick. For a user with an FM2 board, the A10-5800B is the only choice, and it offers a balanced, if lower-scoring, experience.