Core 2 Duo SP7500 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82

Core 2 Duo SP7500 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 Performance Spectrum

Core 2 Duo SP7500

2 / 2

1,766

0.0%

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82

2 / 2

1,777

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Core 2 Duo SP7500 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 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.

Core 2 Duo SP7500 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core 2 Duo SP7500

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,766 vs 1,777).
❌100% higher power demand at 4W vs 2W.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 4W, a 2W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 better than Core 2 Duo SP7500?

Yes. Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 0.6% better PassMark and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 37.5% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 still makes the most sense overall. Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% higher PassMark.

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

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core 2 Duo SP7500 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 Technical Specifications

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

Core 2 Duo SP7500

The Core 2 Duo SP7500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,766 points. Launch price was $249.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82

The Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Puma (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g2. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,777 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core 2 Duo SP7500 and Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Core 2 Duo SP7500 versus 2.2 GHz on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 — a 31.6% clock advantage for the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82. The Core 2 Duo SP7500 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 uses Puma (2008−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo SP7500 scores 1,766 against the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82's 1,777 — a 0.6% lead for the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82.

Feature	Core 2 Duo SP7500	Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.2 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	4 MB+100%	2 MB
Process	65 nm	65 nm
Architecture	Merom (2006−2008)	Puma (2008−2009)
PassMark	1,766	1,777