Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 vs AMD A4-3300
Comparative analysis of Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 and AMD A4-3300 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Compatibility, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization, Memory. Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark - Single thread mark, PassMark - CPU mark, Geekbench 4 - Single Core, Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score, 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
- 2 more cores, run more applications at once: 4 vs 2
- Around 25% better performance in PassMark - Single thread mark: 1216 vs 973
- 2.5x better performance in PassMark - CPU mark: 2338 vs 942
- Around 50% better performance in Geekbench 4 - Single Core: 412 vs 274
- 2.9x better performance in Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core: 1299 vs 445
- Around 68% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.175 vs 0.104
- 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 4.476 vs 1.739
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Number of cores | 4 vs 2 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1216 vs 973 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 2338 vs 942 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 412 vs 274 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1299 vs 445 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.175 vs 0.104 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.476 vs 1.739 |
Reasons to consider the AMD A4-3300
- 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
- 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 1.503 vs 0.612
- 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 71.876 vs 30.904
- 2.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 3.657 vs 1.258
| Specifications (specs) | |
| 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 0.612 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 71.876 vs 30.904 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 3.657 vs 1.258 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
CPU 2: AMD A4-3300
| 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 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 | AMD A4-3300 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1216 | 973 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 2338 | 942 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 412 | 274 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1299 | 445 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score | 0 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.612 | 1.503 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 30.904 | 71.876 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.175 | 0.104 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.258 | 3.657 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.476 | 1.739 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 360 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 360 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 | AMD A4-3300 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield | Llano |
| Launch date | Q1'08 | September 2011 |
| Place in performance rating | 3016 | 3001 |
| Processor Number | Q9550 | |
| Series | Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors | |
| Status | Discontinued | |
| Vertical segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Performance |
||
| 64 bit support | ||
| Base frequency | 2.83 GHz | |
| Bus Speed | 1333 MHz FSB | |
| Die size | 214 mm2 | 228 mm |
| Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 71.4°C | |
| Number of cores | 4 | 2 |
| Transistor count | 820 million | 1178 million |
| VID voltage range | 0.8500V-1.3625V | |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | |
| Maximum frequency | 2.5 GHz | |
Compatibility |
||
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Package Size | 37.5mm x 37.5mm | |
| Sockets supported | LGA775 | FM1 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | |
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 | ||
Virtualization |
||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
Memory |
||
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 with others
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
IntelCore 2 Duo E6300
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
AMDAthlon II X4 640
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
AMDAthlon II X4 631
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
IntelCeleron J1850
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
IntelCeleron J1800
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
AMDA4-4020
