CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3220 vs 9650 among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores
Core i3 3220
5.5
Phenom X4 9650
5.6
Core2 Quad Q6600
5.8
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance
Core i3 3220
6.9
Phenom X4 9650
3.4
Core2 Quad Q6600
3.5
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics
Core i3 3220
0.5
Phenom X4 9650
0.0
Core2 Quad Q6600
0.0
Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing
Core i3 3220
4.9
Phenom X4 9650
0.0
Core2 Quad Q6600
0.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?
Core i3 3220
6.6
Phenom X4 9650
4.7
Core2 Quad Q6600
4.7
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?
Core i3 3220
6.0
Phenom X4 9650
n.d.
Core2 Quad Q6600
n.d.
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more
6.1

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets
Core i3 3220
6.1
Phenom X4 9650
3.5
Core2 Quad Q6600
3.5

Winner
Intel Core i3 3220 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i3 3220  based on its single-core performance and overclocking.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Intel Core i3 3220

Front view of Intel Core i3 3220
Front view of AMD Phenom X4 9650

AMD Phenom X4 9650

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 3220

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 3220

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 2.3 GHz Around 45% higher clock speed
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,764 vs 787 Around 2.2x better PassMark (Single core) score
Much lower typical power consumption 44.69W vs 77.19W More than 40% lower typical power consumption
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.43 GHz vs 2.81 GHz More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much lower annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Sep, 2012 vs Mar, 2008 Release date over 4 years later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.46 GHz vs 3.12 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD Phenom X4 9650

Reasons to consider the
AMD Phenom X4 9650

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 2 MB vs 0.5 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much more l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 70 °C vs 65.3 °C More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3220 vs Phenom X4 9650

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 3220
5,399
Phenom X4 9650
4,005

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 3220
2,501
Phenom X4 9650
1,117

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 3220
173,000 MB/s
Phenom X4 9650
88,700 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 3220
5,351
Phenom X4 9650
3,823

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 3220
5,707
Phenom X4 9650
4,570

GeekBench

Core i3 3220
8,919
Phenom X4 9650
4,570

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i3 3220
4,229
Phenom X4 9650
2,638

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i3 3220
1,764
Phenom X4 9650
787

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Core i3 3220  vs
Phenom X4 9650 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 2.3 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 1155
AM2+
Is unlocked No No

features
Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption
TDP 55W 95W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 2.69 pt/W 1.15 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 77.19W

details

 Core i3 3220  vs
Phenom X4 9650 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 0.5 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB 2 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 65.3°C Unknown - 70°C

overclocking
Overclock popularity 50 5
Overclocked clock speed 3.43 GHz 2.81 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.46 GHz 3.12 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 3,775.1 672.3
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.43 GHz 2.81 GHz

integrated graphics
GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 2500 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 650 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz N/A
Intel Core i3 3220
Report a correction
AMD Phenom X4 9650
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss