Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 vs Intel Core i5-3360M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has 4 physical cores, while the Intel Core i5-3360M has 2 cores. However, the i5-3360M supports 4 threads through Hyper-Threading, matching the QX9775's thread count.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i5-3360M records an average benchmark score of 835, while the QX9775 sits at 813. The i5-3360M is roughly 2.7% ahead on this aggregate metric.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5-3360M scores 346 versus 333 for the QX9775, a 3.9% advantage. The i5-3360M wins every recorded single-core test.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 supports ECC memory. The i5-3360M does not support ECC.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has a TDP of 150 watts, compared to just 35 watts for the i5-3360M. This reflects their different market positions: desktop extreme versus mobile mainstream.

Q: What is the integrated graphics situation?

A: The i5-3360M includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The QX9775 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU at all times.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-3360M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture using a 22 nm process node. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 uses the older Yorkfield (Core 2) architecture on a 45 nm process. This process gap directly impacts power efficiency and clock-for-clock performance.

The i5-3360M packs 2 cores with 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to handle parallel workloads. The QX9775 offers 4 native cores with 4 threads, no Hyper-Threading. Despite having half the physical cores, the i5-3360M's newer architecture allows it to compete effectively in multi-threaded tasks.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The i5-3360M has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The QX9775 also has 64 KB L1 per core but provides 6 MB L2 per die across its two dies, with no L3 cache at all. The i5-3360M's shared L3 design benefits frequent inter-core communication.

Die size and transistor counts tell a story of process evolution. The i5-3360M uses a 118 mm² die, while the QX9775 uses two 107 mm² dies (totaling 214 mm²) and contains 820 million transistors. The newer 22 nm process allows the i5-3360M to fit more modern logic in a smaller area.

Socket and market segment differ completely. The i5-3360M uses Intel BGA 1023 and targets the mobile segment. The QX9775 uses Intel Socket 771 and is a desktop part. The QX9775 is marked end-of-life in the database, while the i5-3360M's production status is not listed.

Clock behavior also separates them. The i5-3360M has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz, allowing dynamic scaling. The QX9775 runs at a fixed 3.20 GHz with no boost capability. The QX9775 does have an unlocked multiplier, while the i5-3360M is locked.

The QX9775 supports PCIe Gen 1 and DDR2 memory (depending on motherboard). The i5-3360M supports dual-channel memory but the specific type is not recorded. The i5-3360M includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, which the QX9775 entirely lacks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3360M wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, but the margins reveal where each processor has relative strengths. The i5-3360M's largest advantage comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it leads by 4.3%. This reflects the architectural efficiency of Ivy Bridge over the aging Core 2 design.

For multi-threaded workloads, the i5-3360M still leads, but the QX9775's four native cores keep the gap modest. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-3360M scores 246 versus 238, a 3.4% edge. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the lead is 3.7% (1029 versus 992). The QX9775's raw core count nearly compensates for its older architecture, but not quite.

The QX9775's advantage lies in its desktop positioning and expansion capabilities. It supports ECC memory, has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and uses a socket that allows desktop-class motherboards. The i5-3360M cannot be overclocked and lacks ECC support. For users needing error-corrected memory or manual clock tuning, the QX9775 is the only option.

Power consumption is a clear win for the i5-3360M. With a TDP of 35 watts versus 150 watts for the QX9775, the i5-3360M delivers comparable performance at less than a quarter of the thermal envelope. This makes it suitable for laptops and compact systems where heat dissipation is limited.

Integrated graphics give the i5-3360M an edge for basic display output without a discrete GPU. The QX9775 requires a separate graphics card, which adds cost and power draw. For embedded or minimal setups, the i5-3360M's HD 4000 graphics simplify the build.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-3360M | Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | None |

| TDP | 35 W | 150 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1023 | Intel Socket 771 |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Core 2 |

| Codename | Ivy Bridge | Yorkfield |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 45 nm |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 2x 107 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 820 million |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 6 MB (per die) |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 1 |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4000 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | Not recorded | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2008-03-23 |

| Launch MSRP | None | $1499 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

The release dates show a four-year gap, with the QX9775 launching in March 2008 and the i5-3360M arriving in May 2012. This explains the process node difference (45 nm versus 22 nm) and the architectural improvements in the newer part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Intel Core i5-3360M wins all five. The smallest margin appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the i5-3360M scores 246 against the QX9775's 238, a 3.4% difference. This test favors the QX9775's four physical cores, yet the newer architecture still prevails.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 3.7% lead for the i5-3360M (1029 versus 992). The QX9775's core advantage narrows the gap but cannot overcome Ivy Bridge's efficiency gains. Similarly, Cinebench R23 multicore gives the i5-3360M a 2451 score against 2363, again a 3.7% margin.

Single-core tests reveal a larger gap. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-3360M scores 145 versus 139, a 4.3% advantage. This is the widest margin across all benchmarks. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 346 versus 333, a 3.9% lead for the i5-3360M. The newer architecture's higher instructions-per-clock is the decisive factor.

Geekbench results are only recorded for the i5-3360M, with a multicore score of 1110 and a single-core score of 518. The QX9775 has no Geekbench entries in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for this test.

The average benchmark score reinforces the trend. The i5-3360M averages 835 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs. The QX9775 averages 813, also in the 22nd percentile. The i5-3360M sits within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon X3450 (837) and 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-5200U (838). The QX9775 matches the Intel Core i7-5550U exactly at 813.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-3360M is the better performer across every recorded benchmark. It leads in multi-core and single-core tests, with margins ranging from 3.4% to 4.3%. Its newer 22 nm architecture delivers higher efficiency, a 35 watt TDP versus 150 watts, and integrated graphics. For mobile users or anyone building a compact, low-power system, the i5-3360M is the clear choice from the data.

The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 retains specific advantages that matter in niche scenarios. It offers ECC memory support, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and four native physical cores. Users who require error-corrected memory or manual clock adjustment must select the QX9775. Its desktop socket and end-of-life status also indicate a platform suited for legacy server or workstation builds where those features are essential.

For general-purpose computing, rendering, and everyday tasks, the i5-3360M wins outright. The QX9775's higher base clock (3.20 GHz versus 2.80 GHz) does not translate into benchmark victories, as the Ivy Bridge architecture compensates with better per-clock performance. The i5-3360M also benefits from a 3.50 GHz boost clock, giving it additional headroom under load.

The 22nd percentile ranking for both processors places them in the lower tier of modern CPUs, but the i5-3360M's edge is consistent. Its nearest rival comparison shows it nearly matching the Intel Xeon X3450 (837, only 0.2% higher), while the QX9775 ties the Intel Core i7-5550U at 813. The data does not support choosing the QX9775 for raw speed; it only makes sense for its unique features.

In short, the i5-3360M is the superior all-around processor. The QX9775 is a specialized part for users needing ECC memory, overclocking, or a desktop platform with four physical cores. Benchmark results indicate that for typical workloads, the i5-3360M's architectural advantages outweigh the QX9775's core count.