Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 vs Intel Core i5-3320M Comparison

The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and the Intel Core i5-3320M represent two vastly different eras of Intel silicon, yet their benchmark scores place them in a surprisingly tight contest. The data shows a consistent, though narrow, victory for the aging desktop extreme processor across every shared Cinebench test, while the mobile chip counters with superior efficiency and a more modern feature set. This head-to-head is less about raw dominance and more about the evolution of what constitutes a winning processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably one-sided in favor of the Core 2 Extreme QX9775, but the margins are far from decisive. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the QX9775 scores 238 against the i5-3320M's 227, a 4.8% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the older chip posts 992 versus 948, a 4.6% lead. The gap narrows slightly in single-threaded workloads, with the QX9775 taking a 4.5% win in R20 single-core (139 vs 133) and a 4.7% win in R23 single-core (333 vs 318). The largest raw delta appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the QX9775 scores 2363 compared to 2258, yet this still represents just a 4.7% difference.

What stands out is that the Core 2 Extreme wins all five shared benchmarks, but the i5-3320M is never far behind. The data suggests that the newer architecture's efficiency almost compensates for having half the physical cores. The i5-3320M's only exclusive benchmark, Geekbench multi-core (1146) and single-core (589), cannot be directly compared to the QX9775, as the older chip lacks those results. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the QX9775 averages 813, while the i5-3320M averages 803, a mere 1.2% difference. Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile in the database, reinforcing that they are performance peers despite their generational divide.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two chips is vast. The Core 2 Extreme QX9775 is built on Intel's 45 nm process with a Yorkfield die, packing 820 million transistors across a dual-die design measuring 2x 107 mm². It belongs to the Core 2 Extreme (Yorkfield XE) generation and targets the desktop segment. In contrast, the i5-3320M uses the newer 22 nm process with a monolithic 118 mm² die, part of the Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) generation for mobile devices.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The QX9775 offers four physical cores with four threads, while the i5-3320M provides two cores but four threads via Hyper-Threading. This explains the benchmark parity: two modern cores with four threads essentially match four older cores without simultaneous multithreading. Cache layouts differ as well, with the QX9775 using 64 KB of L1 per core and 6 MB of L2 per die, while the i5-3320M has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and adds a 3 MB shared L3 cache. The presence of L3 on the i5-3320M is a significant architectural upgrade, as the QX9775 lacks any L3 entirely.

Memory support highlights another divide. The QX9775 uses DDR2 memory, with the exact configuration depending on the motherboard, and supports ECC memory. The i5-3320M employs dual-channel memory but does not support ECC. The QX9775 also carries a Gen 1 PCIe interface, while the i5-3320M's PCIe details are not specified. The i5-3320M includes integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics, a feature entirely absent on the QX9775. Clock speeds reinforce the generational gap: the QX9775 runs at a fixed 3.20 GHz with no boost capability, while the i5-3320M starts at 2.60 GHz and can turbo up to 3.30 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 2 Extreme QX9775 wins every benchmark where both chips were tested, which makes its use case straightforward: raw multi-threaded and single-threaded compute in legacy desktop systems. Its five benchmark wins include all Cinebench variants, from R15 multi-core to R23 single-core. The data indicates that for pure processing throughput, the extra two physical cores still provide a measurable, if modest, edge over the i5-3320M's four threads. This makes the QX9775 suitable for older desktop workloads that are highly parallel and not constrained by memory bandwidth or modern instruction sets.

The i5-3320M, despite losing all head-to-head comparisons, wins in context. Its 35 W TDP versus the QX9775's 150 W TDP makes it the clear choice for mobile systems where power consumption and heat dissipation are critical. The integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic tasks, a capability the QX9775 simply does not possess. The i5-3320M's support for a boost clock up to 3.30 GHz also means it can exceed its base clock in lightly threaded scenarios, potentially closing the single-core gap in real-world use. For laptops and compact systems, the i5-3320M is the only viable option, even if its peak performance is slightly lower.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals significant divergences across nearly every category. The most obvious difference is core count: the QX9775 has four cores, while the i5-3320M has two. Threads are equal at four each, thanks to Hyper-Threading on the i5. Base clocks differ, with the QX9775 at 3.20 GHz and the i5-3320M at 2.60 GHz, but the i5 adds a 3.30 GHz boost clock that the QX9775 lacks entirely.

Thermal design power is a stark contrast: the QX9775 draws 150 W, while the i5-3320M draws only 35 W. The sockets are incompatible, with the QX9775 using Intel Socket 771 and the i5-3320M using Intel BGA 1023. Process technology separates them further, with 45 nm versus 22 nm. The QX9775's dual-die design totals 2x 107 mm², while the i5-3320M uses a single 118 mm² die. Transistor count is listed only for the QX9775 at 820 million.

Cache configurations differ in structure: the QX9775 provides 6 MB of L2 per die with no L3, while the i5-3320M offers 256 KB of L2 per core plus a 3 MB shared L3. Memory support shows the QX9775 using DDR2 with motherboard-dependent specifics, whereas the i5-3320M lists only dual-channel memory without a specific type. ECC support is present on the QX9775 but absent on the i5-3320M. The QX9775 has Gen 1 PCIe and no integrated graphics, while the i5-3320M includes Intel HD 4000. The QX9775 is an unlocked multiplier desktop part, while the i5-3320M is locked and mobile. The QX9775 carries a launch MSRP of $1499, while the i5-3320M has no listed launch price.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 scores 2363, which is 4.7% higher than the Intel Core i5-3320M's 2258.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-3320M support ECC memory?

A: No, the i5-3320M does not support ECC memory, whereas the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 does.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has a TDP of 150 W, while the Intel Core i5-3320M has a TDP of 35 W.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has an average benchmark score of 813, while the Intel Core i5-3320M averages 803, a difference of about 1.2%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-3320M have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 4000 graphics. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has four physical cores, while the Intel Core i5-3320M has two physical cores but four threads.