Core 2 Extreme QX9770 vs Xeon D-1518

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 Extreme QX9770 vs Xeon D-1518 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 Extreme QX9770 vs Xeon D-1518: 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 Extreme QX9770

2008

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon D-1518 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon D-1518, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,399 MSRP, while Xeon D-1518 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌288.6% higher power demand at 136W vs 35W.

Xeon D-1518

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.
✅Draws 35W instead of 136W, a 101W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,562 vs 4,611).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon D-1518 better than Core 2 Extreme QX9770?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon D-1518 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Xeon D-1518 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon D-1518 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $1,399 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Extreme QX9770 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Xeon D-1518 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core 2 Extreme QX9770 vs Xeon D-1518 Technical Specifications

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

Core 2 Extreme QX9770

The Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Yorkfield (2007−2009) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 12 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 136 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,611 points. Launch price was $249.

Xeon D-1518

The Xeon D-1518 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 9 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (per core). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1667. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,562 points. Launch price was $193.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 2 Extreme QX9770 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon D-1518's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 versus 2.2 GHz on the Xeon D-1518 — a 37% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (base: 3.2 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core 2 Extreme QX9770 uses the Yorkfield (2007−2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Xeon D-1518 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 scores 4,611 against the Xeon D-1518's 4,562 — a 1.1% lead for the Core 2 Extreme QX9770. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 vs 1.5 MB (per core) on the Xeon D-1518.

Feature	Core 2 Extreme QX9770	Xeon D-1518
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz+45%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.2 GHz+45%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1.5 MB (per core)
L2 Cache	12 MB (total)	256K (per core)+2033%
Process	45 nm	14 nm-69%
Architecture	Yorkfield (2007−2009)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	4,611+1%	4,562
Cinebench R23 Multi	2,200	—
Geekbench 6 Single	451	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,583	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Extreme QX9770 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Xeon D-1518 uses FCBGA1667 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core 2 Extreme QX9770	Xeon D-1518
Socket	LGA775	FCBGA1667
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Core 2 Extreme QX9770) / not specified (Xeon D-1518). Primary use case: Core 2 Extreme QX9770 targets Enthusiast.