CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E8400 vs 9550 among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores
Core2 Duo E8400
5.1
Phenom X4 9550
5.5
Core2 Quad Q6600
5.8
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance
Core2 Duo E8400
4.9
Phenom X4 9550
3.3
Core2 Quad Q6600
3.9
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics
Core2 Duo E8400
0.0
Phenom X4 9550
0.0
Core2 Quad Q6600
0.0
Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing
Core2 Duo E8400
0.0
Phenom X4 9550
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?
Core2 Duo E8400
5.2
Phenom X4 9550
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?
Core2 Duo E8400
n.d.
Phenom X4 9550
n.d.
Core2 Quad Q6600
n.d.
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more
3.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets
Core2 Duo E8400
3.7
Phenom X4 9550
3.3
Core2 Quad Q6600
3.5

Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400  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 Core2 Duo E8400

Front view of Intel Core2 Duo E8400
Front view of AMD Phenom X4 9550

AMD Phenom X4 9550

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Duo E8400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo E8400

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.2 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,251 vs 758 More than 65% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz vs 2.77 GHz More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per watt 1.83 pt/W vs 1.11 pt/W More than 65% better performance per watt
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 6x more l2 cache per core
Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 77.19W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Higher Maximum operating temperature 72.4 °C vs 70 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.23 GHz vs 3.05 GHz Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD Phenom X4 9550

Reasons to consider the
AMD Phenom X4 9550

Report a correction
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8400 vs Phenom X4 9550

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8400
2,982
Phenom X4 9550
3,844

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8400
1,625
Phenom X4 9550
1,070

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8400
128,000 MB/s
Phenom X4 9550
85,400 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8400
2,826
Phenom X4 9550
3,742

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8400
3,092
Phenom X4 9550
4,727

GeekBench

Core2 Duo E8400
4,794
Phenom X4 9550
4,727

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core2 Duo E8400
2,160
Phenom X4 9550
2,549

PassMark (Single Core)

Core2 Duo E8400
1,251
Phenom X4 9550
758

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Core2 Duo E8400  vs
Phenom X4 9550 
Clock speed 3 GHz 2.2 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 775
AM2+

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

power consumption
TDP 65W 95W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 1.83 pt/W 1.11 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 77.19W

details

 Core2 Duo E8400  vs
Phenom X4 9550 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 6 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.4°C Unknown - 70°C

overclocking
Overclocked clock speed 4.22 GHz 2.77 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.23 GHz 3.05 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz 2.77 GHz

integrated graphics
GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

bus
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 1,800 MHz
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
Report a correction
AMD Phenom X4 9550
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 1 comment.
Me (06:34 AM, May 27, 2015)
Biased.
comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss