Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 vs Duo E8400 |
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Quad Q9550
- 2.83 GHz
- Quad core
4.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Quad Q9550
 | More cores 4 | | More threads 4 |
VS
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
4.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Duo E8400
| | Higher clock speed 3 GHz | | Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W |
| | Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz | | Significantly lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q9550 vs E8400 among desktop 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 | |
| Fire Strike | |
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? | |
| Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 2.83 GHz | More than 5% higher clock speed | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 52.81W | vs | 77.19W | More than 30% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 3.99 GHz | More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| 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 | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 72.4 °C | vs | 71.4 °C | Almost the same | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.23 GHz | vs | 4.03 GHz | Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q9550 vs Duo E8400
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
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Reviews Word on the street
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Quad Q9550 | vs | Duo E8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 3 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| EM64T | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
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 | |
details | Core2 Quad Q9550 | vs | Duo E8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 12 MB | 6 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 45 nm | |
| Transistor count | 820,000,000 | 410,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 8 | 9 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.36V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 71.4°C | Unknown - 72.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 127 | 125 | |
| Overclock review score | 5 | 4.5 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.99 GHz | 4.22 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.03 GHz | 4.23 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.99 GHz | 4.22 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 95W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.51 pt/W | 1.83 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 77.19W | 52.81W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 1,333 MHz | |
 Intel Core2 Quad Q9550  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Duo E8400 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $145 | ||
| E8400 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $125 | |
| E8400 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $125 | |
| E8400 vs E7500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $179 | |
| E8400 vs Q8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $145 | $64 | |
| E8400 vs E5700 | ||
 | VS | |
| $287 | ||
| Q9550 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $287 | $339 | |
| Q9550 vs Q9650 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | ||
| 6700K vs 7th Gen A12-9700P | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9420 | ||
