Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 vs Intel Xeon X5482 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5482 and the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 are two quad-core processors from Intel’s Core 2 generation, both manufactured on the same 45 nm process node. They share identical core and thread counts, base clock speeds, and transistor counts, yet they are aimed at different market segments: the Xeon X5482 for servers and workstations, the QX9770 for desktop enthusiasts. Benchmark data from the database shows that the Xeon X5482 holds a consistent, albeit narrow, lead across every recorded Cinebench test. The average benchmark score for the Xeon X5482 is 805, while the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 averages 790, a difference that is small in absolute terms but uniform across all workloads. The Xeon X5482 also ranks in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, while the QX9770 sits at the 21st percentile, placing both firmly in the same performance tier among historical processors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are remarkably consistent, with the Xeon X5482 winning all five recorded tests. The largest margin of victory comes in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon X5482 scores 983 against 963 for the QX9770, a lead of 2.1 percent. This is the only test where the margin exceeds the two percent mark, and it reflects a small but measurable advantage in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon X5482 records 2341 points, while the QX9770 achieves 2295, a difference of exactly 2 percent. This is the second largest delta in the dataset and reinforces the pattern seen in the R20 multi-core test. The single-core results follow the same trend, though with slightly smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon X5482 scores 330 versus 324, a 1.9 percent advantage. The R20 single-core test shows the Xeon at 138 and the QX9770 at 136, a 1.5 percent lead. The smallest difference appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Xeon X5482 scores 235 against 231, a 1.7 percent gap.

Across the entire benchmark suite, the Xeon X5482 outperforms the QX9770 by margins ranging from 1.5 to 2.1 percent. No test favors the Core 2 Extreme part. This uniformity is notable because the two processors share the same architecture generation, the same 45 nm process, the same 3.20 GHz base clock, and the same 820 million transistor count. The performance difference must therefore come from other factors, such as cache organization, memory support, or platform-level differences.

When placed in the broader database context, both processors sit near a cluster of much newer and lower-power parts. The Xeon X5482’s average score of 805 is exactly matched by the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U, which also averages 805, and it is virtually tied with the AMD Athlon X4 850 at 806 and the Intel Core i5-3320M at 803. The QX9770’s average of 790 places it near the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and the AMD Opteron 3350 HE, both at 789, and the Intel Core i5-4210U and Intel Core i5-3610ME, both at 788. These comparisons show that despite their age, both processors remain competitive with significantly newer low-end and mid-range mobile and desktop parts in synthetic rendering tests.

The real-world interpretation of these results is straightforward. A 2 percent multi-core advantage for the Xeon X5482 means that in a long-running render job, the Xeon will complete the task slightly faster, but the difference is unlikely to be perceptible in interactive use. Single-core performance differences of 1.5 to 1.9 percent are similarly minor. The data indicates that these two processors are functionally equivalent for most workloads, with the Xeon holding a small but consistent edge.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 is faster in every recorded multi-core test. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 983 versus 963 for the QX9770, a 2.1 percent advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2341 against 2295, a 2 percent lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 235 versus 231, a 1.7 percent advantage.

Q: Is there any test where the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 wins?

A: No. The database records five head-to-head benchmarks, and the Xeon X5482 wins all of them. The QX9770’s closest result is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it trails 136 to 138, a 1.5 percent deficit.

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

A: The Xeon X5482 leads in both single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 330 versus 324, a 1.9 percent advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 138 versus 136, a 1.5 percent lead.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score difference?

A: The Xeon X5482 has an average benchmark score of 805, while the QX9770 averages 790. This is a difference of 15 points, and the Xeon also holds a slightly higher percentile ranking at 22 percent versus 21 percent.

Q: How do these processors compare to other CPUs in the database?

A: The Xeon X5482 matches the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U at an average score of 805 and is nearly tied with the AMD Athlon X4 850 at 806. The QX9770 is closest to the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and AMD Opteron 3350 HE, both at 789, and the Intel Core i5-4210U at 788.

Q: Do the processors share the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 4 threads. They also share the same 3.20 GHz base clock, no boost clock, and the same 45 nm process node with 820 million transistors.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear but modest winner: the Intel Xeon X5482. It outperforms the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 in all five recorded Cinebench tests, with margins between 1.5 and 2.1 percent. For users prioritizing maximum rendering performance in multi-threaded applications, the Xeon X5482 is the better choice based solely on the recorded data. Its average benchmark score of 805 versus 790 reinforces this conclusion, as does its higher percentile ranking of 22 percent compared to 21 percent.

However, the QX9770 is not far behind. The largest gap between the two is just 2.1 percent, which means the QX9770 delivers nearly identical performance in these workloads. The QX9770 also has a lower thermal design power of 136 watts compared to 150 watts for the Xeon X5482, and it offers an unlocked multiplier, making it more flexible for overclocking, assuming the platform supports it. The Xeon X5482, by contrast, has a locked multiplier and carries a launch MSRP of $1279.

For a desktop enthusiast building a legacy system, the QX9770’s lower power draw and unlocked multiplier may be more attractive, despite the slight performance deficit. For a server or workstation environment where the Xeon’s ECC memory support and server-oriented platform are required, the Xeon X5482 is the natural pick. The data does not support choosing the QX9770 on raw performance grounds, since it loses every benchmark, but the platform features and power characteristics are legitimate reasons to consider it. Ultimately, the Xeon X5482 is the faster processor in every measured workload, while the QX9770 offers a competitive alternative with different platform trade-offs.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Xeon X5482 uses the Intel Socket 771, while the QX9770 uses the Intel Socket 775. This is a fundamental compatibility difference, as the two sockets are not interchangeable. The Xeon X5482 has a thermal design power of 150 watts, while the QX9770 draws 136 watts, a 14 watt difference in favor of the desktop part.

Cache configuration also differs. The Xeon X5482 has 6 MB of L2 cache per die, while the QX9770 has 12 MB of shared L2 cache. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. Memory support is another differentiator: the Xeon X5482 supports DDR2 and DDR3, with support depending on the motherboard, and it has ECC memory support. The QX9770 supports DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3, but does not support ECC memory. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

The Xeon X5482 is classified as a Server/Workstation part, while the QX9770 is a Desktop part. The Xeon has a locked multiplier, while the QX9770 has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon X5482 has a launch MSRP of $1279; the QX9770 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The Xeon’s part number is SLANZSLBBG, while the QX9770’s is SLAWM. The release dates also differ, with the Xeon released on 2007-11-10 and the QX9770 released on 2008-03-23.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s Core 2 architecture and use the same 45 nm process node, the same 820 million transistors, and the same die size of 2x 107 mm². The Xeon X5482 uses the Harpertown codename, while the QX9770 uses the Yorkfield codename. The Xeon’s generation is listed as Xeon (Harpertown), while the QX9770’s generation is Core 2 Extreme (Yorkfield XE).

The most significant architectural difference lies in the L2 cache. The Xeon X5482 has 6 MB of L2 cache per die, which, given its dual-die design, effectively provides 6 MB per die. The QX9770 has 12 MB of shared L2 cache, double the total cache capacity of the Xeon. Despite this cache disadvantage, the Xeon X5482 still manages to outperform the QX9770 in all recorded benchmarks, suggesting that the Xeon’s memory support and platform characteristics compensate for its smaller cache.

Both processors support PCIe Gen 2. The QX9770 lists integrated graphics as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, while the Xeon X5482 has no integrated graphics. The Xeon supports ECC memory, which is typical for server and workstation parts, while the QX9770 does not. The QX9770 supports DDR1 memory in addition to DDR2 and DDR3, while the Xeon supports only DDR2 and DDR3, with the exact support depending on the motherboard.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The Xeon was released on 2007-11-10, and the QX9770 followed on 2008-03-23. Both are based on dual-die designs, as indicated by the die size of 2x 107 mm², and both have a base clock of 3.20 GHz with no boost clock. The architectural similarities are substantial, but the cache organization and platform-level features create the small performance and capability differences observed in the data.