Phenom II X4 810 vs Core 2 Quad Q9500

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9500
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.40
+12.9%
Phenom II X4 810
2009
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.24

Core 2 Quad Q9500 outperforms Phenom II X4 810 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Phenom II X4 810 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22252314
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.16
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.391.24
Architecture codenameno dataDeneb (2009−2011)
Release dateno data9 February 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$116

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Phenom II X4 810 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.83 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speedno data2.6 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data128 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data512 KB (per core)
L3 cache6 MB L2 Cache4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data258 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data758 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Phenom II X4 810 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
SocketLGA775AM3
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Phenom II X4 810. 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

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Phenom II X4 810 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 Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Phenom II X4 810 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Phenom II X4 810. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Phenom II X4 810.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9500 1.40
+12.9%
Phenom II X4 810 1.24

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9500 2224
+12.8%
Phenom II X4 810 1971

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Core 2 Quad Q9500 362
+24%
Phenom II X4 810 292

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Core 2 Quad Q9500 1008
+15.2%
Phenom II X4 810 875

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.40 1.24

Core 2 Quad Q9500 has a 12.9% higher aggregate performance score.

The Core 2 Quad Q9500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X4 810 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Phenom II X4 810, 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.


Intel Core 2 Quad Q9500
Core 2 Quad Q9500
AMD Phenom II X4 810
Phenom II X4 810

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.


4.6 1225 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q9500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 65 votes

Rate Phenom II X4 810 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9500 or Phenom II X4 810, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.