CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q9500 vs 5000 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

7.4

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core2 Quad Q9500 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Quad Q9500  based on its performance and single-core performance.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q9500

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q9500

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 2 MB 3x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much higher clock speed 2.83 GHz vs 1.55 GHz Around 85% higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 3x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 5,402 vs 2,562 More than 2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,562 vs 842 More than 85% better geekbench 3 single core score
Front view of AMD A4 5000

Reasons to consider the
AMD A4 5000

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 28 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 10.97W vs 77.19W 7x lower typical power consumption
Much better performance per watt 13.96 pt/W vs 1.6 pt/W Around 8.8x better performance per watt
Newer Feb, 2014 vs Jan, 2010 Release date over 4 years later
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 90 °C vs 71.4 °C More than 25% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual home energy cost 3.25 $/year vs 22.89 $/year 7x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 11.83 $/year vs 83.22 $/year 7x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q9500 vs A4 5000

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Quad Q9500
120,400 MB/s
A4 5000
752,800 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q9500  vs
A4 5000 
Clock speed 2.83 GHz 1.55 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 775
BGA 769

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
F16C
MMX
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

details

Core2 Quad Q9500  vs
A4 5000 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 6 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 28 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 71.4°C Unknown - 90°C

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon HD 8330

power consumption

TDP 95W 13.5W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 3.25 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 11.83 $/year
Performance per watt 1.6 pt/W 13.96 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 10.97W
Intel Core2 Quad Q9500
Report a correction
AMD A4 5000
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus