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 Q9550

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q9550

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 4,230 vs 1,301 More than 3.2x better 3DMark06 CPU score
Much more l2 cache 12 MB vs 1 MB 12x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much higher clock speed 2.83 GHz vs 1.2 GHz More than 2.2x higher clock speed
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 5,132 vs 1,576 More than 3.2x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 6x more l2 cache per core
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.99 GHz vs 1.27 GHz Around 3.2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 5,498 vs 1,642 More than 3.2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 1,604 vs 773 More than 2x better geekbench 3 single core score
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.03 GHz vs 1.2 GHz More than 3.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Core i3 330UM

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 330UM

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 14.63W vs 77.19W 5.3x lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year vs 22.89 $/year 5.3x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year vs 83.22 $/year 5.3x lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer May, 2010 vs Jan, 2008 Release date over 2 years later
Better performance per watt 3.15 pt/W vs 1.51 pt/W More than 2x better performance per watt

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q9550 vs Core i3 330UM

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 Q9550
121,500 MB/s
Core i3 330UM
50,100 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q9550  vs
Core i3 330UM 
Clock speed 2.83 GHz 1.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775
BGA 1288

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 95W 18W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 4.34 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 15.77 $/year
Performance per watt 1.51 pt/W 3.15 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 14.63W

details

Core2 Quad Q9550  vs
Core i3 330UM 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 12 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 820,000,000 382,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 8 9

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.99 GHz 1.27 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.03 GHz 1.2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.99 GHz 1.27 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported N/A 2
GPU clock speed N/A 166 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 500 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Core2 Quad Q9550
Report a correction
Intel Core i3 330UM
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus