i3-550 vs Athlon 64 X2 4400+

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 64 X2 4400+
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.42
Core i3-550
2010
2 cores / 4 threads, 73 Watt
1.01
+140%

Core i3-550 outperforms Athlon 64 X2 4400+ by a whopping 140% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Core i3-550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29652448
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.11
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Series2x Athlon 64 (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency0.611.31
Architecture codenameWindsor (2006−2007)Clarkdale (2010−2011)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)30 May 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$101

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Core i3-550 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads24
Base clock speedno data3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus rate1000 MHz2.5 GT/s
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data256 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography90 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data81 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data73 °C
Number of transistorsno data382 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Core i3-550 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 configurationno data1
Socketno dataFCLGA1156
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt73 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Core i3-550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
PAEno data36 Bit
FDIno data+

Security technologies

Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Core i3-550 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Core i3-550 are enumerated here.

VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Core i3-550. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16.38 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel Processors
Clear Video HDno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Core i3-550 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ and Core i3-550.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 0.42
i3-550 1.01
+140%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 675
i3-550 1611
+139%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.42 1.01
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 90 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 73 Watt

Athlon 64 X2 4400+ has 12.3% lower power consumption.

i3-550, on the other hand, has a 140.5% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more threads, and a 181.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Core i3-550 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 4400+ and Core i3-550, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Intel Core i3-550
Core i3-550

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 140 votes

Rate Athlon 64 X2 4400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 424 votes

Rate Core i3-550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or Core i3-550, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.