AMD A4-3300 vs Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650
Comparative analysis of AMD A4-3300 and Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Virtualization, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies. Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark - Single thread mark, PassMark - CPU mark, Geekbench 4 - Single Core, Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD A4-3300
- CPU is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 32 nm vs 45 nm
- Around 46% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 95 Watt
- 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 1.503 vs 0.587
- 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 71.876 vs 30.945
- 3.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 3.657 vs 1.175
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | September 2011 vs August 2008 |
Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm vs 45 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 95 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 1.503 vs 0.587 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 71.876 vs 30.945 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 3.657 vs 1.175 |
Reasons to consider the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650
- 2 more cores, run more applications at once: 4 vs 2
- Around 20% higher clock speed: 3 GHz vs 2.5 GHz
- 6x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
- Around 32% better performance in PassMark - Single thread mark: 1283 vs 973
- 2.6x better performance in PassMark - CPU mark: 2473 vs 942
- Around 62% better performance in Geekbench 4 - Single Core: 444 vs 274
- 3.1x better performance in Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core: 1400 vs 445
- Around 56% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.162 vs 0.104
- 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 4.276 vs 1.739
Specifications (specs) | |
Number of cores | 4 vs 2 |
Maximum frequency | 3 GHz vs 2.5 GHz |
L2 cache | 6144 KB (per die) vs 512 KB (per core) |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - Single thread mark | 1283 vs 973 |
PassMark - CPU mark | 2473 vs 942 |
Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 444 vs 274 |
Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1400 vs 445 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.162 vs 0.104 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.276 vs 1.739 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: AMD A4-3300
CPU 2: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650
PassMark - Single thread mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - CPU mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench 4 - Single Core |
|
|
||||
Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
Name | AMD A4-3300 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - Single thread mark | 973 | 1283 |
PassMark - CPU mark | 942 | 2473 |
Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 274 | 444 |
Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 445 | 1400 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 1.503 | 0.587 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 71.876 | 30.945 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.104 | 0.162 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 3.657 | 1.175 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1.739 | 4.276 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 360 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 360 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD A4-3300 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture codename | Llano | Yorkfield |
Launch date | September 2011 | August 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 3000 | 2987 |
Vertical segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Price now | $54.49 | |
Processor Number | Q9650 | |
Series | Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors | |
Status | Discontinued | |
Value for money (0-100) | 22.69 | |
Performance |
||
64 bit support | ||
Die size | 228 mm | 214 mm2 |
L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 6144 KB (per die) |
Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 45 nm |
Maximum frequency | 2.5 GHz | 3 GHz |
Number of cores | 2 | 4 |
Transistor count | 1178 million | 820 million |
Base frequency | 3.00 GHz | |
Bus Speed | 1333 MHz FSB | |
Maximum core temperature | 71.4°C | |
VID voltage range | 0.8500V-1.3625V | |
Memory |
||
Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Compatibility |
||
Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
Sockets supported | FM1 | LGA775 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Low Halogen Options Available | ||
Package Size | 37.5mm x 37.5mm | |
Virtualization |
||
AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
Security & Reliability |
||
Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
Advanced Technologies |
||
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
FSB parity | ||
Idle States | ||
Intel 64 | ||
Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
Thermal Monitoring |