Core 2 Extreme X7900 vs E2-3800

Core 2 Extreme X7900 vs E2-3800 Performance Spectrum

Core 2 Extreme X7900

2 / 2

1,115

0.0%

Pentium D 830

Pentium T2370

Pentium T3400

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

1,136

+1.9%

Mobile Athlon 64 3700+

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

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 Extreme X7900 vs E2-3800 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 X7900 vs E2-3800: 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 X7900

2007

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 15W, a 11W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,115 vs 1,136).
❌No integrated graphics, while E2-3800 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

E2-3800

2013

Why buy it

✅+1.9% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8280, while Core 2 Extreme X7900 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Core 2 Extreme X7900 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌275% higher power demand at 15W vs 4W.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-3800 better than Core 2 Extreme X7900?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Extreme X7900 is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 48 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, E2-3800 pulls ahead with 1.9% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E2-3800 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

E2-3800 is the better buy right now. E2-3800 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.9% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core 2 Extreme X7900 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 48 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E2-3800 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2007) 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.

Core 2 Extreme X7900 vs E2-3800 Technical Specifications

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

Core 2 Extreme X7900

The Core 2 Extreme X7900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,115 points. Launch price was $851.

E2-3800

The E2-3800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.3 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,136 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 2 Extreme X7900 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the E2-3800 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the E2-3800 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 versus 1.3 GHz on the E2-3800 — a 73.2% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme X7900. The Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the E2-3800 uses Kabini (2013−2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Extreme X7900 scores 1,115 against the E2-3800's 1,136 — a 1.9% lead for the E2-3800.

Feature	Core 2 Extreme X7900	E2-3800
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+115%	1.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	4 MB+100%	2048 kB
Process	65 nm	28 nm-57%
Architecture	Merom (2006−2008)	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,115	1,136+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	136
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	389

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E2-3800 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 versus DDR3-1600 on the E2-3800 — the E2-3800 supports 139.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The E2-3800 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core 2 Extreme X7900) vs 1 (E2-3800). PCIe lanes: 0 (Core 2 Extreme X7900) vs 4 (E2-3800) — the E2-3800 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Core 2 Extreme X7900	E2-3800
Socket	PGA478	FT3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR3-1600+140%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	16 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x (Core 2 Extreme X7900) vs Yes (E2-3800). The E2-3800 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8280), while the Core 2 Extreme X7900 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Extreme X7900 targets Mobile.