Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 vs Intel Core i5-3380M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a consistent picture: the Intel Core i5-3380M wins every recorded head-to-head test, though the margins are narrow. Across five Cinebench workloads, the mobile i5 takes all five wins, with the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 trailing in each discipline.

The largest gap appears in single-core performance. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-3380M scores 148 against 139 for the QX9775, a 6.5% advantage. That pattern holds in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i5 posts 353 versus 333, a 6% lead. The single-core results reflect the architectural gulf between a 2012 Ivy Bridge part and a 2008 Yorkfield part, even when the older chip runs at a higher base clock.

Multi-core results follow a similar, slightly smaller margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-3380M scores 252 while the QX9775 manages 238, a 5.9% difference. Cinebench R20 multicore shows the same 5.9% gap, with scores of 1051 and 992 respectively. Cinebench R23 multicore narrows it to 6%, with the i5 at 2504 and the QX9775 at 2363.

Notably, the QX9775 has four physical cores compared to the i5's two cores with four threads. Despite the core-count disadvantage, the i5 still leads in every multi-threaded test. The data suggests that architectural efficiency and newer instruction handling outweigh raw core count in these workloads, at least at the clock speeds recorded here.

Aggregate scores reinforce the pattern. The i5-3380M carries an average benchmark score of 838, while the QX9775 sits at 813. That places the i5 roughly 3% ahead overall, a modest but consistent edge. Both CPUs land at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning neither is a standout in the broader landscape, but the i5's per-core efficiency keeps it ahead of the desktop quad-core from an earlier era.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from different worlds. The Intel Core i5-3380M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, using a 22 nm process node from Intel. The Core 2 Extreme QX9775 uses the Yorkfield core, part of the Core 2 family, fabricated on a 45 nm node. That process gap is significant: the i5 packs its transistors at roughly double the density, which directly contributes to its power and performance characteristics.

The transistor counts tell a stark story. The QX9775 contains 820 million transistors spread across two dies, each measuring 107 mm². The i5-3380M's die size is recorded at 118 mm², a single die for a dual-core part. The older chip uses two separate dies, each with its own 6 MB L2 cache, adding up to 12 MB of L2 across the package. The i5 instead uses a shared 3 MB L3 cache, with 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core.

Clock behavior differs fundamentally. The i5-3380M has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, allowing it to ramp up under load. The QX9775 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and no boost clock listed; it runs at a fixed frequency. Despite the QX9775's higher base clock, the i5's boost capability and newer architecture close the gap and then surpass it.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The i5-3380M carries a TDP of 35 watts, while the QX9775 draws 150 watts. That 115-watt difference reflects the process node advantage and the mobile versus desktop design philosophy. The i5 is rated for the Intel Socket G2 (988B) and targets the mobile segment, while the QX9775 uses the Intel Socket 771 and is a desktop part. The QX9775 is marked as end-of-life, whereas the i5 has no such status recorded.

Memory support also diverges. The i5 supports DDR3 with a dual-channel memory bus and no ECC capability. The QX9775 supports DDR2 depending on the motherboard, with ECC memory support enabled. The older chip also lists PCIe Gen 1 connectivity, while the i5's PCIe details are not recorded. Integrated graphics appear only on the i5, which includes Intel HD 4000; the QX9775 has no integrated GPU at all.

The QX9775 has an unlocked multiplier, making it a candidate for overclocking, while the i5 is locked. Release timing also separates them: the QX9775 launched in March 2008 with a launch MSRP of $1499, while the i5 arrived in December 2012. The part numbers differ as well, with the i5 listed as SR0X7 and the QX9775 as SLANYEU80574XL088N.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split in use cases, even though the i5 wins every benchmark. The i5-3380M is the better choice for workloads that rely on single-threaded speed and modern instruction efficiency. Its wins in Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core, with deltas of 6.5% and 6% respectively, show that tasks like legacy single-threaded applications, older games, or lightly threaded productivity tools will run noticeably better on the mobile chip. The boost clock of 3.60 GHz gives it headroom that the fixed 3.20 GHz QX9775 cannot match.

For multi-threaded workloads, the i5 still leads, but the margin is thinner. The 5.9% advantage in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore, and the 6% edge in R23 multicore, suggest that the QX9775's four physical cores partially compensate for its architectural age. Rendering tasks, video encoding, or compilation workloads that scale across cores will see the QX9775 stay competitive, though not ahead. The QX9775's larger aggregate L2 cache (12 MB versus 3 MB) may help in cache-sensitive workloads, though the recorded benchmarks do not isolate that effect.

The QX9775 wins on platform flexibility in one sense: it supports ECC memory, which matters for stability in long-running compute tasks or early server-style builds. It also has an unlocked multiplier, so users comfortable with overclocking could push it beyond its 3.20 GHz base clock, potentially closing or reversing the single-core gap. The i5 offers no such headroom.

The i5 wins decisively on power efficiency. At 35 watts versus 150 watts, the i5 draws less than a quarter of the QX9775's power. For mobile systems, thermal-constrained small-form-factor builds, or any scenario where cooling and electricity matter, the i5 is the only rational choice. The QX9775 requires substantial cooling and a high-wattage platform.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M wins every single-core test. It scores 148 to 139 in Cinebench R20 single-core (6.5% ahead) and 353 to 333 in Cinebench R23 single-core (6% ahead).

Q: Does the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 win any benchmarks?

A: No. Across the five recorded head-to-head tests, the i5-3380M wins all five. The QX9775's best result is a 5.9% deficit in multi-core tests, never a victory.

Q: How do their core counts and threads compare?

A: The i5-3380M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the QX9775 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The QX9775 has no hyper-threading, so its thread count equals its core count.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The i5-3380M has a TDP of 35 watts, while the QX9775 has a TDP of 150 watts. The i5 draws significantly less power despite winning all benchmarks.

Q: Are these CPUs comparable in overall performance?

A: Their average benchmark scores are close: the i5-3380M averages 838, and the QX9775 averages 813. Both sit at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The i5 leads by about 3% on average, but they are in the same performance tier.

Q: Does the QX9775 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the QX9775 supports ECC memory. The i5-3380M does not support ECC and uses only DDR3 memory.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the choice straightforward for most users: the Intel Core i5-3380M is the better processor. It wins every recorded test, draws 35 watts instead of 150 watts, and comes from a newer, more efficient 22 nm architecture. The i5's single-core lead of 6.5% in Cinebench R20 and 6% in Cinebench R23 means everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications will favor it. Its multi-core lead, while smaller at 5.9% to 6%, still holds across rendering workloads that would seemingly favor the quad-core QX9775.

The QX9775 is not without its niche. Its ECC memory support and unlocked multiplier appeal to users building a legacy workstation or a system where memory reliability and overclocking are priorities. Its 4 physical cores provide a baseline that the i5 matches through hyper-threading, but the older chip cannot overcome its architectural disadvantage. The QX9775 also launched with a $1499 MSRP, which historically positioned it as a premium desktop part, but the data shows that price did not translate into lasting performance superiority.

For a mobile or low-power system, the i5-3380M is the clear pick. For a desktop user with access to high-wattage cooling and a tolerance for older platforms, the QX9775 remains functional, but the recorded benchmarks offer no scenario where it comes out ahead. The verdict from the database is unambiguous: the i5-3380M is the faster, more efficient chip, and the QX9775's only advantages are platform features, not performance.