Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300

Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-72

2 / 2

1,794

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Extreme QX9300

4 / 4

1,805

+0.6%

Pentium 2117U

Pentium N3540

Celeron 1020E

Pentium Dual Core T2370

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 64 FX-72

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,794 vs 1,805).
❌Launch MSRP is still $799 MSRP, while Core 2 Extreme QX9300 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌941.7% higher power demand at 125W vs 12W.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300

2008

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 12W instead of 125W, a 113W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Extreme QX9300 better than Athlon 64 FX-72?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 FX-72 is ahead with a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Extreme QX9300 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core 2 Extreme QX9300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $799 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark. Athlon 64 FX-72 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2006 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (2.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on F.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 64 FX-72

The Athlon 64 FX-72 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: F. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,794 points. Launch price was $149.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300

The Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.53 GHz, with boost up to 2.53 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 12 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,805 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 FX-72 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-72 versus 2.53 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 — a 10.1% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-72. The Athlon 64 FX-72 uses the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture (90 nm), while the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-72 scores 1,794 against the Core 2 Extreme QX9300's 1,805 — a 0.6% lead for the Core 2 Extreme QX9300. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-72	Core 2 Extreme QX9300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+11%	2.53 GHz
Base Clock	—	2.53 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	12 MB+1100%
Process	90 nm	45 nm-50%
Architecture	Windsor (2006−2007)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,794	1,805

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-72 uses the F socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.