Winner
Intel Core2 Quad Q9550
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 based on its .
See full details Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 vs Q9400 |
VS
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q9550 vs Q9400 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)
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 | |
| 2.3 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Q9550 vs the Q9400. | |||||||
| |||||||
| CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Q9400 vs the Q9550. | |||||||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q9550 vs Q9400
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)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Quad Q9550 | vs | Q9400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 2.66 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad 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 | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 95W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.51 pt/W | 1.51 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 77.19W | 77.19W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 1,333 MHz | |
details | Core2 Quad Q9550 | vs | Q9400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 12 MB | 6 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 1.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 45 nm | |
| Transistor count | 820,000,000 | 456,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 8 | 8 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.36V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 71.4°C | Unknown - 71.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 127 | 34 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.99 GHz | 3.54 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.03 GHz | 4.15 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.99 GHz | 3.54 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 | |
 Intel Core2 Quad Q9550  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $200 | ||
| Q9400 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $179 | |
| Q9400 vs Q8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $179 | |
| Q9400 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $287 | ||
| Q9550 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $287 | $339 | |
| Q9550 vs Q9650 | ||
| | VS | |
| $287 | $179 | |
| Q9550 vs E8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $287 | $220 | |
| Q9550 vs 2500K | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $125 | $50 | |
| 3220 vs 5300 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
