Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 vs Intel Xeon X5482 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload type, with the Intel Xeon X5482 taking every recorded win in the head-to-head comparison. Across five Cinebench tests, the Xeon leads in both multi-core and single-core workloads. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 983 against the Core 2 Extreme QX9650s 872, a 12.7% advantage. The same test suite shows a 12.4% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core (235 versus 209) and a 12.7% edge in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2341 versus 2077).

Single-core performance also favors the Xeon, though the margins are slightly tighter. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon posts 138 against 123, a 12.2% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 330 versus 293, a 12.6% difference. These results indicate that the Xeon X5482 does not merely scale better with multiple threads; it also extracts more performance from a single core, which matters for lightly threaded applications.

The Core 2 Extreme QX9650 has no benchmark wins in the recorded head-to-head data. However, it does hold one structural advantage that does not appear in the Cinebench results: its L2 cache is configured as 12 MB shared, double the 6 MB per die allocation on the Xeon. In workloads that repeatedly access a large working set, that extra shared cache could reduce memory traffic, but the recorded Cinebench scores do not reflect any such benefit. The Xeon compensates with a 3.20 GHz base clock versus the Core 2 Extremes 3.00 GHz, and that 6.7% clock advantage likely explains much of the consistent single-core margin.

The Xeon also carries a higher thermal envelope at 150 W against 130 W, which is consistent with its server/workstation positioning. The Core 2 Extreme targets desktop users with an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon is locked. For users who prioritize out-of-the-box performance in the recorded benchmarks, the Xeon wins every tested workload. For users who prioritize overclocking headroom or a shared last-level cache, the Core 2 Extreme offers those features, but the data does not quantify their performance impact.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a straightforward recommendation: the Intel Xeon X5482 is the stronger processor in every benchmark where both were measured. It wins all five Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 12.2% to 12.7%. Its average benchmark score of 805 places it at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 2 Extreme QX9650s average score of 789 sits at the 21st percentile. The Xeons nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U, matches its 805 average score exactly, while the Core 2 Extreme lands alongside the AMD Opteron 3350 HE at 789.

The Xeon is the choice for multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, or any workload that scales across all four cores. Its 983 Cinebench R20 multi-core score and 2341 Cinebench R23 multi-core score are the strongest recorded figures in this comparison. It also wins single-core tests, so there is no workload category in the data where the Core 2 Extreme pulls ahead.

The Core 2 Extreme QX9650 is the choice for a different kind of user: one who values the unlocked multiplier and the desktop-oriented feature set. The data shows a 12 MB shared L2 cache, which is double the Xeons per-die allocation, and support for DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3 memory. It also has a lower 130 W TDP, which makes it easier to cool in a desktop chassis. But in pure benchmark terms, the Xeon outperforms it across the board.

The Xeon supports ECC memory, which is a meaningful feature for workstation reliability, and it is built for the Intel Socket 771 platform. The Core 2 Extreme uses Intel Socket 775 and supports integrated graphics on certain motherboards as a chipset feature. Neither processor is currently in production; both are end-of-life parts. The Xeon had a launch MSRP of $1279, while the Core 2 Extreme has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest recorded win for the Xeon X5482 is a 12.7% advantage in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where it scores 983 against the Core 2 Extremes 872. That same 12.7% delta appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with the Xeon scoring 2341 and the Core 2 Extreme scoring 2077. These two tests represent the biggest multi-core gaps in the data, and both favor the server part.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a slightly smaller margin at 12.4%, with the Xeon scoring 235 and the Core 2 Extreme scoring 209. The pattern across all three multi-core tests is consistent: the Xeon leads by roughly 12.4% to 12.7%, regardless of the workload intensity or rendering complexity. This consistency suggests the advantage comes from the Xeons higher base clock and possibly its memory support configuration, rather than from any workload-specific optimization.

Single-core results follow the same trend. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the Xeon at 138 against 123, a 12.2% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Xeon at 330 against 293, a 12.6% lead. The single-core margins are slightly tighter than the multi-core margins, but they still represent a clear and consistent advantage for the Xeon.

The Core 2 Extreme does have one additional benchmark in the database that the Xeon lacks: Geekbench multi-core and single-core results. The Core 2 Extreme scores 1443 in Geekbench multi-core and 509 in Geekbench single-core. These figures are not part of the head-to-head comparison because the Xeon has no recorded Geekbench scores, so they cannot be used to establish a win for either processor. They do, however, provide an absolute reference point for the Core 2 Extremes performance in a different benchmark suite.

The overall win count is 5 for the Xeon and 0 for the Core 2 Extreme. The average benchmark score difference is 16 points in favor of the Xeon (805 versus 789), which corresponds to a roughly 2% gap in aggregate performance. That aggregate gap is smaller than the individual Cinebench deltas because the average includes benchmarks that are not shared between the two processors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 wins all five recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 has zero wins in the comparison.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest deltas are 12.7% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (983 versus 872) and 12.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2341 versus 2077).

Q: Does the Core 2 Extreme QX9650 have any benchmark where it beats the Xeon X5482?

A: No. The recorded data shows no benchmark where the Core 2 Extreme outperforms the Xeon. The Core 2 Extreme does have Geekbench scores (1443 multi-core, 509 single-core), but the Xeon has no recorded Geekbench results, so no comparison is possible.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon leads in both recorded single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 138 against 123 (12.2% higher). In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 330 against 293 (12.6% higher).

Q: What are the cache configurations of each processor?

A: The Xeon X5482 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die. The Core 2 Extreme QX9650 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 12 MB of shared L2 cache.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 does not support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same underlying Core 2 architecture and are built on Intel's 45 nm process node, with 820 million transistors and a dual-die design measuring 2x 107 mm². The similarities end there, however, as each chip is tailored to a different market segment.

The Xeon X5482 uses the Harpertown codename and the Intel Socket 771 platform, while the Core 2 Extreme QX9650 uses the Yorkfield codename and the Intel Socket 775 platform. The Xeon runs at a base clock of 3.20 GHz with a 150 W TDP, making it the faster and hotter part. The Core 2 Extreme runs at 3.00 GHz with a 130 W TDP, sacrificing clock speed for a lower thermal envelope. Both processors have four cores and four threads, and neither has a boost clock.

Memory support differs significantly. The Xeon supports DDR2 and DDR3 memory with dual-channel configuration, and the exact memory type depends on the motherboard, and memory support also includes ECC. The Core 2 Extreme supports DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3 memory, also with dual-channel configuration, but it lacks ECC support. The Core 2 Extreme also lists integrated graphics on certain motherboards as a chipset feature. PCIe support is Gen 2 on both processors.

Cache layout is another point of divergence. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache. The Core 2 Extreme has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 12 MB of shared L2 cache, which is double the Xeons per-die allocation. The Core 2 Extreme also has no L3 cache.

The Xeon is a server/workstation part with a locked multiplier, while the Core 2 Extreme is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon production status is end-of-life and release date is 2007-11-10. The Core 2 Extreme production status is also end-of-life and release date is 2007-11-29. The Xeon part number is SLANZSLBBG and the Core 2 Extreme part number is SLAN3.

The average benchmark score places the Xeon at 805 and the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 2 Extreme sits at 789 and the 21st percentile. The Xeons nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U at 805, the AMD Athlon X4 850 at 806, the Intel Core i5-3320M at 803, and the Intel Core i7-870S at 809. The Core 2 Extremes nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 3350 HE at 789, the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 at 790, the Intel Core i5-4210U at 788, and the Intel Core i5-3610ME at 788.