Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 vs Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
Comparative analysis of Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 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 95% better performance in PassMark - CPU mark: 2340 vs 1200
- Around 76% better performance in Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core: 1299 vs 738
- Around 85% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 0.612 vs 0.33
- Around 17% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 30.904 vs 26.311
- Around 77% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.175 vs 0.099
- Around 85% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 1.258 vs 0.68
- Around 86% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 4.476 vs 2.408
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Number of cores | 4 vs 2 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 2340 vs 1200 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1299 vs 738 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.612 vs 0.33 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 30.904 vs 26.311 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.175 vs 0.099 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.258 vs 0.68 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.476 vs 2.408 |
Reasons to consider the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
- Around 1% higher maximum core temperature: 72.4°C vs 71.4°C
- Around 46% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 95 Watt
- Around 1% better performance in PassMark - Single thread mark: 1238 vs 1221
- Around 2% better performance in Geekbench 4 - Single Core: 422 vs 412
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Maximum core temperature | 72.4°C vs 71.4°C |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 95 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1238 vs 1221 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 422 vs 412 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
CPU 2: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
| 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 | Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1221 | 1238 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 2340 | 1200 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 412 | 422 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1299 | 738 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score | 0 | 2400 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.612 | 0.33 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 30.904 | 26.311 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.175 | 0.099 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.258 | 0.68 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.476 | 2.408 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 | Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield | Wolfdale |
| Launch date | Q1'08 | January 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 2929 | 2939 |
| Processor Number | Q9550 | E8400 |
| Series | Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors | Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Vertical segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Price now | $129.95 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 4.87 | |
Performance |
||
| 64 bit support | ||
| Base frequency | 2.83 GHz | 3.00 GHz |
| Bus Speed | 1333 MHz FSB | 1333 MHz FSB |
| Die size | 214 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 71.4°C | 72.4°C |
| Number of cores | 4 | 2 |
| Transistor count | 820 million | 410 million |
| VID voltage range | 0.8500V-1.3625V | 0.8500V-1.3625V |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | |
| L2 cache | 6144 KB | |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | |
| Maximum frequency | 3 GHz | |
Compatibility |
||
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Package Size | 37.5mm x 37.5mm | 37.5mm x 37.5mm |
| Sockets supported | LGA775 | LGA775 |
| 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) | ||
Memory |
||
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 with others
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
IntelPentium D 950
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
IntelCore 2 Duo E8400
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
AMDAthlon II X4 631
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
AMDA4-3400
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
AMDA4-3300
IntelCore 2 Quad Q9550 vs
IntelCeleron J1850
