Core 2 Quad Q9550s vs Athlon 64 3600+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | June 2004 (20 years ago) | 27 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.83 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 0.83 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1333 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128K | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 12 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | 2x 107 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | 76 °C |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | 820 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 754 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | + |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 65 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9550s has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 188.9% more advanced lithography process, and 36.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 3600+ and Core 2 Quad Q9550s, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
