Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 vs AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE
Comparative analysis of Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 and AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
- 2 more cores, run more applications at once: 4 vs 2
- Around 81% better performance in PassMark - CPU mark: 2340 vs 1296
- Around 70% better performance in Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core: 1299 vs 762
- 3.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 30.904 vs 9.709
- Around 35% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.175 vs 0.13
- 5.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 1.258 vs 0.213
- Around 94% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 4.476 vs 2.308
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Number of cores | 4 vs 2 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 2340 vs 1296 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 412 vs 411 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1299 vs 762 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 30.904 vs 9.709 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.175 vs 0.13 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.258 vs 0.213 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.476 vs 2.308 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE
- Processor is unlocked, an unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
- Around 19% lower typical power consumption: 80 Watt vs 95 Watt
- Around 7% better performance in PassMark - Single thread mark: 1307 vs 1216
- 3.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 2.25 vs 0.612
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Unlocked | Unlocked vs Locked |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt vs 95 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1307 vs 1216 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.25 vs 0.612 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
CPU 2: AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE
| 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 Phenom II X2 555 BE |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1216 | 1307 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 2340 | 1296 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 412 | 411 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1299 | 762 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score | 0 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.612 | 2.25 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 30.904 | 9.709 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.175 | 0.13 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.258 | 0.213 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.476 | 2.308 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 | AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield | Callisto |
| Launch date | Q1'08 | January 2010 |
| Place in performance rating | 3017 | 3025 |
| 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 | 258 mm |
| Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 71.4°C | |
| Number of cores | 4 | 2 |
| Transistor count | 820 million | 758 million |
| VID voltage range | 0.8500V-1.3625V | |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | |
| L3 cache | 6144 KB (shared) | |
| Maximum frequency | 3.2 GHz | |
| Unlocked | ||
Compatibility |
||
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Package Size | 37.5mm x 37.5mm | |
| Sockets supported | LGA775 | AM3 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 80 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) | ||
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
AMDPhenom II X2 555 BE
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
